At 23:53 22/02/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com> writes:
JFC> I think we all are in agreement except on an idea Eudardo
JFC> Mendez gave me. I will rephrase it as "if someting tastes as
JFC> a WG, smells like a WG, its charter should be approved like
JFC> for a WG". The non-WG list is only subject to the approbation
JFC> of an AD. This opens the door to too many possible contention
JFC> and COI suspicions. Logic and ethic calls for non-WG list
JFC> receiving WG authority rights to be subject to WG creation
JFC> cycle (obviously far faster). I think it should result from a
JFC> simple change in the registration form and page display. It
JFC> will say the status of the non-WG list approval and
JFC> details. To be on the list an AD approval is enough. To get
JFC> full WG priviledges the non-WG list will need to have the
JFC> "IAB reviewed", "IESG approved", Area and ADs, etc.
In principle this sounds fine. My confusion stems from the fact that
it's actually more restrictions that are applied to IETF lists than
Here is what an IETf list implies to me:
* open participation
* an appeals path
* open archive
* IETf IPR
What privileges do you see?
I am not sure about what you ask.
Their priviledge is to be an IETF list. This implies constraints
(IESG approval, IAB charter review,...)
Their priviledge is reduced contrainst. AD approval is enough for
those not deciding for the IETF. No Charter, just a few lines
describing their topic.
Ietf mailing list