Hi SM, > On Jun 25, 2019, at 3:18 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > At 12:46 PM 07-06-2019, The IESG wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from the IETF Administrative Support Activity >> 2 WG (iasa2) to consider the following document: - 'IAB, IESG, IETF Trust and >> IETF LLC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall >> Process: Operation of the IETF Nominating and Recall Committees' >> <draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07.txt> as Best Current Practice >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final >> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2019-06-21. Exceptionally, comments may be > > There wasn't any proclamation (Section 4.4) during the last plenary session [1]. Did the IASA 2.0 Working Group discuss that? No. Implementation of the processes described in this document is a matter for individual nomcoms. > > Section 7.1.1 of the draft specifies that a recall petition as a "Community Petition". However, it does not provide any rationale for restricting signatories to "members of the IETF community" who can afford to attend IETF meetings. Why are there two classes of members in the IETF? > > The above-mentioned restriction is contrary to one of the goals of the Internet Standards Process, which is fairness. Unfairness is not be usually considered as a "Best Common Practice" and yet this draft intends to "standardize" it. It would be quite unfortunate if the members of the IESG condoned the procedure specified in Section 7.1.1. In response to the Gen-ART review and follow-on discussion, the following sentence has been added to the -08 version of the document: "This revision addresses only the changes required for IASA 2.0; should the community agree on other changes, they will be addressed in future documents." Best, Alissa > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > 1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/minutes-104-ietf-201903271710-00
