Hi Brian,
At 01:19 PM 28-03-2020, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
An IESG Statement is how the IESG announces formal decisions that
are outside the normal flow. "Exercise judgement" in English is a
standard phrase, but the Collins dictionary entry says:
>> If you exercise something such as your authority, your rights,
or a good quality, you use it or put it into effect.
When the IETF hits an urgent procedural problem that the written
rules don't cover, it has always been the case that we expect the
IESG to exercise its judgement after consulting the community. We
have many precedents for that.
Thank you for the above explanation.
That one out of the last five meetings was cancelled after many
people had made their travel plans. That is not foreseen in the rules.
Please see Scott's comments about the pool of people:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gPz7XTo8y0drqb6Wgs9zKrJ0QBU/
The NomCom Chair has not been appointed, and is subject to the same
eligibility rules as the volunteer pool. At the moment, the ISOC
President cannot appoint a chair because he cannot know who is
eligible. So we are in a vacuum until the IESG exercises its
judgement. (Which is why I don't think we should go the
draft-resnick-variance route.)
There is already a pool of eligible persons irrespective of whether
the last meeting happened or not.
At 01:56 PM 28-03-2020, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Well, that's not immune to challenge, which is why I believe that
almost any choice that the IESG could make is fine, as long as it's
notified to the ISOC Board. That wouldn't completely immunise
against an appeal but would make an appeal highly unlikely to succeed.
Nobody raised a concern about being ineligible if that last meeting
is not taken into consideration. The number of appeals over the last
few years is a single digit number. The number of appeals which
could be viewed as successful is very low. I would worry too much
about designing a vaccine against challenges.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
