>>>>> "Pete" == Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Pete> case incorrect. The IESG proposed this publicly before
Pete> publishing it, and a 3-week long community discussion took
Pete> place, in which many of the present discussants took part:
Pete> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=c&q=subject%3A(Removal+of+an+Internet-Draft)&as=1&so=date
Pete> The policy was not set by the IESG by fiat, but rather
Pete> resulted from community deliberations. Now, there wasn't a
Pete> *formal* call for consensus, but even so, I can't find any
Pete> mention in that discussion of anyone saying, "This needs to be
Pete> a formal consensus of the IETF, documented as a BCP, not just
Pete> an IESG statement" or anything like that. Perhaps people don't
Pete> feel that they can do that, or ought to in the face of a
Pete> proposal from the IESG, but I have a hard time believing that
Pete> none of the senior participants on this list felt that they
Pete> could. Either way, I think accusing the IESG of "setting
Pete> policy by fiat" in this case is wrong.
I don't remember whether I participated in that discussion, but I recall
thinking at the time, "Ah, the IESG is doing its job, this looks fine."
This seems exactly like the sort of place where having the IESG set
policy is reasonable. We don't want this to be a BCP, both because it's
unneeded and because it's not refined enough to cover all the corner
cases. We would not want a formal BCP revision process if we had left
out a case where urgent action was required for legal reasons.
Moreover, this is a case where it seems like this is clearly within the
sorts of things the IESG is supposed to consider, they have a good
handle on the situation, and if they get it wrong, we can give feedback
or produce a BCP.
I think the process followed in approaching that statement was very
appropriate.