Robert: I'd like to share my thoughts about your comments. First, I want to say that I mostly agree with you. However, your suggestion is not practical. If there was a WG that could weigh in on this topic, then that would have been done, but there is not an existing WG with the charter to consider this issue. RFC 3777 was drafted by a WG, Last Called, and then approved by the IESG. That is the process that made RFC 3777 a BCP. With the IAOC conducting the Day Pass experiment, an interpretation of the rule in RFC 3777 regarding NomCom eligibility is needed. This point was raised at the last plenary, and the whole community heard many opinions about the right way to proceed. Given that discussion as input, an interpretation was drafted in the form of an IESG statement. An Internet-Draft could have been generated, but the next steps would not have been different. That is, Last Call is the point where the community gets to tell the IESG if they are going in the right direction or not. That is where we are right now. Russ On 5/7/2010 7:57 AM, Robert Elz wrote: > | The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass > | Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on > | a policy statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this > | action. > > I have two (different types of) comments to make. First, and most > important by far, is WTF ??? 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. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf