--On Friday, May 07, 2010 07:27 -0700 Dave CROCKER
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/7/2010 4:57 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
>> I understand the need for IESG "Statements"
>> from time to time, but the very worst thing to possibly to be
>> making such statements about is the process by which the IESG
>> (and more of course) is selected - if there was anything
>> about which there's an obvious and clear conflict of
>> interest, it is this.
>>
>> This is an issue that must be sent to a working group to
>> decide -
>
>
> Oops.
>
> Robert is correct that this cannot be an IESG decision. This
> must be an IETF-wide decision.
>
> I don't happen to think that requires a working group, and I'm
> fine with having the IESG take the initiative and draft the
> relevant text to be an addendum to the current Nomcom
> normative specification, and make an 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.
Sadly, I have to mostly agree.
I do think the IAOC and IESG could have avoided this issue by
defining the "day pass" experiment as a paid visitor arrangement
that explicitly does not establish eligibility for anything that
"registration" establishes, but, given the situation we now find
ourselves in...
At the same time, as long as it remains clearly an experiment, I
think (partially following Andrew Sullivan's later note) it is
perfectly reasonable for the IESG to take the position that
experiments don't establish Nomcom eligibility and that a
published RFC is not a requirement to carry out an experiment or
explain its details. Of course, that case would be much
stronger if there were a real description of the experiment and
evaluation conditions, but...
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf