Hi Spencer,
At 08:29 PM 17-04-2019, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
That could be a fine plan. It assumes that The S is For Steering.
:-)
Another orthogonal Fine Plan could be for an AD to ask the IAB to
provide a BOF Shepherd to help the proponents - which almost
certainly means "more people than just SM" - to produce a BOF
request that will result in a successful BOF, so participants who
rarely if ever see each other face to face don't have to figure that out.
The procedure for this is described at
https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2012-2/iab-member-roles-in-evaluating-new-work-proposals/,
unless the IAB has changed that procedure since 2012.
And if this discussion is only about the definition of who is
eligible to sign recall petitions, whether with or without John
Klensin's proposal, I note that
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-nomcom/ is still an
active list, and seems to be exactly the right place for limited
discussion. If what's wanted is POISED2019, that's another mailing
list, of course, which any AD can approve.
Thanks for the helpful suggestions. Several years ago, you and I had
a discussion on that mailing list.
BCP 39 is about architectural oversight. Anyway, a "BOF" is
described as a session for
"market research" and technical "brainstorming". There are working
group which have been formed without a "BOF". If I am not mistaken,
I may have chaired that type of working group. As for a "Fine Plan",
it will be very difficult to find/justify funding for the subject
(please see the email from the General Area Director).
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
