(Not picking Keith's comment, in particular: it was just convenient to use for the reply here.) For those of you who think the IESG should not (or is not allowed to) exercise judgment here and make a one-time exception for this exceptional situation: Please advise how you think we can get the NomCom eligibility question sorted out IN TIME to seat a 2020-21 NomCom, when we normally need to ask for volunteers within the next 6 weeks. Barry On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 7:21 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > >
