> On Jun 26, 2019, at 7:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi SM, > > below... > > On 27-Jun-19 07:11, S Moonesamy wrote: >> Hi Alissa, >> At 10:56 AM 26-06-2019, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>> >>>> 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." >> >> If I am not mistaken, the process for this Last Call is based on BCP >> 9. The proposed sentence unfortunately does not address the comments >> which I sent on the Last Call. > > Maybe it was a bit too summarised, but the scope of *this* update to > the NomCom process was (according to the charter of the IASA2 WG in general) > to make the changes required by the creation of IETF LLC and the closing > of the IAOC. So I think the response is correct: state this scope restriction > in the document and move on. Yes. This document does not provide a rationale for how it defines nomcom-eligibility because RFC 7437 does not provide such a rationale. Providing such a rationale or changing the definition of nomcom-eligibility are not changes required for IASA 2.0, so they are not in scope for this document. Thanks, Alissa > > The whole NomCom process probably does need a re-examination; the issue > of how to enfranchise remote attendees is only part of it, I think, and > there may be even more fundamental issues. But I think that should be a > separate process (probably starting by somebody building a list of perceived > problems). It will take some time, and approving the essential changes due > to IETF LLC is somewhat urgent. > > Regards > Brian
