On 27 Mar 2020, at 18:10, Keith Moore wrote:
On 3/27/20 6:50 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 3/27/2020 3:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
When I posted my suggestion for the short-term fix for the 2020-2021
NomCom, I mentioned that we would have to publish it as a BCP.
I'm not sure that's 100% correct. See, e.g.,
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/nomcom-eligibility-day-passes/
For your reading pleasure, here is the Last Call discussion on that
statement, so there is precedent:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&email_list=ietf&q=subject%3A(Policy%20Statement%20on%20the%20Day%20Pass%20Experiment)&as=1&so=date
I am not sure that it's within the IESG's purview to make such policy
statements, especially since nomcom is not an IESG function.
The IESG is the consensus caller for BCPs, and the NomCom process is a
BCP process, so I can see the argument. Also, the IESG was defining
attendance at an IETF meeting, which could arguably be a reasonable
thing for the IESG to do. YMMV.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
