I'd like to share my thoughts about your comments. First, I want to say
that I mostly agree with you. However, your suggestion is not
practical. If there was a WG that could weigh in on this topic, then
that would have been done, but there is not an existing WG with the
charter to consider this issue.
RFC 3777 was drafted by a WG, Last Called, and then approved by the
IESG. That is the process that made RFC 3777 a BCP. With the IAOC
conducting the Day Pass experiment, an interpretation of the rule in RFC
3777 regarding NomCom eligibility is needed. This point was raised at
the last plenary, and the whole community heard many opinions about the
right way to proceed. Given that discussion as input, an interpretation
was drafted in the form of an IESG statement. An Internet-Draft could
have been generated, but the next steps would not have been different.
That is, Last Call is the point where the community gets to tell the
IESG if they are going in the right direction or not. That is where we
are right now.
On 5/7/2010 7:57 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
| 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
I have two (different types of) comments to make. First, and most
important by far, is WTF ??? I understand the need for IESG "Statements"
from time to time, but the very worst thing to possibly to be making such
statements about is the process by which the IESG (and more of course) is
selected - if there was anything about which there's an obvious and clear
conflict of interest, it is this.
Ietf mailing list