Dave,
There is a rather fundamental "constitutional" difference between
having the IESG assess community rough consensus, versus having the
IESG ask for input and then make the decision based on IESG
preferences. In the first, the formal authority resides with the
community; in the second it resides with the IESG.
Maybe, if there really was a difference in the intents here. I don't
speak for the IESG's intent but my intent definitely was to treat this
question in exactly the same way as we treat these questions for
documents. For your comparison, here's two last call announcements, one
for the statement and then another one for a document. Do you think
there's a real difference? Please note that the IESG sometimes uses its
own judgment even for documents, e.g., by blocking something that we
believe is broken.
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
a policy statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
mailing
lists by 2010-05-20.
The IESG has received a request from the <X> WG
to consider the following document: <DOC> as an <CLASS> RFC.
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by <DATE>.
In any case, I wouldn't mind doing this change/clarification as an RFC.
I don't see why it would take any longer than approving a statement, but
I am aware that other people may not agree with me on that...
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf