On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:25:35AM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote: > The IESG has discussed what the best way is to handle a decision for > eligibility for the 2020/21 NomCom, given the timeframe involved and the > discussions that are already happening. > > 1. We are concerned that a normal process for discussing a draft, > conducting a last call, and approving a BCP would take too long. But earlier you wrote: | If you haven't already weighed in on this, please post your comment |here, in this thread on <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, by 30 April 2020. That's... four weeks. You don't have to get the BCP published, just approved, and four weeks is enough time, isn't it? > 2. We are concerned that rushing such a process by, for example, posting a > draft now and immediately last-calling it without a normal period of > discussion would call into question the legitimacy of our consensus process A last call *is* a normal period of discussion. Sure, there would be no preceding discussion, but that's OK -- the minimum time is 4 weeks, and you've got 28 days + two to spare. > and would set a bad precedent. We also note that have already stated that > we’d like community comments by 30 April, and we are concerned about > cutting that time short in order to write such a draft. > > 4. We believe the IESG does have — and must have — the latitude to address > exceptional situations such as this and to make exceptions to our > processes. At the same time, we appreciate and agree with concerns about > overstepping, and we agree that maintaining accountability and appropriate > checks and balances is important. Perhaps, but it's much better not to even require a debate about that and follow the standard process. > The IESG, therefore, plans to continue collecting input and evaluating the > community’s rough consensus about the immediate NomCom-eligibility question > through 30 April, as stated. We will then post a statement and inform the > ISOC Board of Trustees, as we would do with a process BCP. That statement > will serve as the basis for eligibility to serve on this year’s NomCom, and > this year’s only; it will NOT remain in effect beyond that brief timeframe, > and will make that aspect clear. If the input collection happens on the ietf@xxxxxxxx list, then how is this different from running an actual IETF Last Call? > If rough consensus of the community is that it is important for the IESG’s > decision to be published as a BCP, we will do so, handling that after the > immediate need for a quick decision has passed and making the publication > for archival purposes. You can do it all in a single last call. Are you concerned that the LC would be inconclusive? > We also encourage the community to continue and complete the two efforts > that have been started, to formally define an exception process, and to > update NomCom eligibility requirements to account for virtual meetings and > for remote participation. Sure. Nico --
