On 3/27/20 7:15 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
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
Sure, but there's not a written consensus-approved process to approve an
IESG statement that's not reflected in an RFC. And IESG doesn't get to
dictate how nomcom operates.
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.
For other purposes, say whether someone gets a t-shirt, perhaps. Not
for nomcom purposes, IMO.
Keith
