I'm actually enjoying this more than I should be ...
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:03 PM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/18/2019 12:31 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
>> On Apr 17, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for this email, Alissa. It's interesting. I presume it means that the IESG is unanimous, because it only takes one AD to AD sponsor a draft.
> I asked the IESG. I did not get responses from everyone, but of the people who did respond none of them volunteered to AD-sponsor.
In the past, what's worked for dealing with small things is the
formation of a design team to look at the problem and figure out if
there's a document or two to be had. Perhaps that's a better approach
than WG forming BOFs or even trying to find a sponsor for this one
little piece of the problem?
And the reason Mike knows this, is that he (and something like the first 10 Nomcom chairs) were on a design team that Russ Housley formed to look at issues that had recurred across Nomcoms, which we don't really have much visibility because there's not a lot of overlap of Nomcom membership over time.
The report that design team produced is at https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00.txt. It resulted in most of the updates to RFC 3777 before they were all obsoleted by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7437/.
Do the right thing, of course :D
Spencer
Asa general model, people leave "elected" positions due to term
expiration, resignation, expulsion (not IETF), recall, death, or
disability (partial IETF - self-reporting yes as a resignation,
non-self-reporting no). It may make sense to fill out the full score
card while we're updating the recall process.
Later, Mike
