Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Spencer: I suggested the one-of--your-three-meetings-can-be-with-a-day-pass option during IESG discussion. My thought was that day job demands and other reasons might make someone prefer to take an occasional day pass instead of a full meeting, and I'd rather err on the side of allowing more volunteers than being too strict. My understanding of the rest of the IESG's opinion was that they did not want to see any reduction in required exposure to the IETF process. Personally, I think the difference would be minimal. But so would the help that the relaxed rule would bring. I'd be surprised if there's a single person from the usual 100 or so Nomcom volunteers who has used a day pass. So I at least did not feel strongly about arguing this either way. (But I'm persuaded by Dave's argument that the rule should be simple.)

Dave, Kre: I'm not so convinced that there would be any problem even if the IESG (or IAOC) decided how to interpret the RFC-specified rules in a practical situation. However, I don't think we need to argue this because there is an ongoing Last Call and the intention is to ask the community for feedback and then make a decision. Even if we did this with a BCP RFC and a working group, there would still be a similar Last Call and an IESG approval decision. You could, of course, make the argument that this is important enough to be permanently recorded in an RFC as opposed to an IESG statement. However, my understanding is that the day pass is still an experiment, so you could argue that its an overkill. I have no problem doing this as an RFC either, however.

Jari

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]