On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 07:27:48AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: > assessment of public rough consensus. But the actual decision /must/ be > IETF-wide and it must be published as an addendum RFC asserting IETF-wide > consensus. Even for this experiment (the evaluation conditions for which have always been a little hazy to me, but never mind that)? That is, the statement explicitly notes that an update to the RFC is needed for any permanent state of affairs. This just clarifies the rules temporarily so that we can get on with picking the next NomCom. Surely if we have to get a new RFC out the door, it's going to wreak havoc with with NomCom process this year; but we have the problem right now, because someone could be eligible or not for this year's NomCom depending on whether the day pass they used in Anaheim or Hiroshima is counted. I think that, as a temporary measure to deal with the current experiment, the IESG taking a decision is acceptable. Excluding day-pass-only people is completely defensible because the rules were written in a period when day passes didn't exist. So nobody who was then eligible is made ineligible by this decision. (It is not relevant that someone "would have" used a day pass had it previously been available: we do not make rules for every possible world, only for the one we're in.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf