(aargh, I got sucked into the black hole of this thread in the end...) On 06/03/18 03:51, Ted Lemon wrote: > I do not believe that policies about IETF meetings actually require > or should require IETF consensus. The IESG runs the IETF meeting. That seems very overstated (perhaps understandably given the context). The practice I've seen (when I was on the IESG) was for the IESG to seek out, and properly handle, community comment on draft versions of (I think all) IESG statements or policies. I think that's a fine thing to do, and keep doing. I think an IESG that stopped doing that would be making a significant mistake, and one that could take quite a while to repair via nomcom, so hopefully the IESG don't make that mistake (I'm confident that they won't). There are of course a bunch of minor things the IESG agree or experiment with when organising meetings, but that's not the same as things like this policy. So while I agree that running the IETF consensus process isn't formally needed for IESG statements, and ought not be needed, I'd hate to see the IESG not seeking or properly handing, or even worse, ignoring, feedback from the community on some draft IESG statement/policy. > The IESG has access to confidential information that would not be > appropriate to share with the IETF as a whole. That's the job we > appoint them to do. What Joel said - confidential ombusteam information is not shared with the IESG. Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x7B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
