On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 08:20 AM 10/13/2001, James M Galvin wrote:
>All topics have always needed IESG approval. It's just that with
>POISSON (at least while I've been Chair) the approval was just
>handled by the Chairs on behalf of the working group.
Please review the recent process that took place when a working
group chose to censor a posting and to direct all complaints to
poisson.
Although it was incorrect to direct the complaints to the working
group, a spontaneous and productive dialogue took place about the
censorship.
There was no IESG involvement or approval of the topic.
Dave, there is a difference between an open forum for open discussion of
a topic and a topic being an issue to be addressed by a working group
that will produce an outcome that will be documented in some formal
way. It is topics of the latter type that require IESG approval.
Surely we agree on that point?
The topic you mention took place on poised. So what? And I ask that
question in a formal context.
I'm not saying it wasn't useful or productive to talk about it, but it
was not (let me emphasize *not*) a working group action nor a task
delegated to the working group for review and closure. The fact that
discussion trailed off accomplished what? And I ask again in a formal
context. It tells me that the group of people involved in the
discussion and others on the mailing list agreed on the point. Everyone
else in the IETF community missed it.
I fail to see why that discussion could not have taken place on the ietf
mailing list. Your assertion of a distinction between an IETF formality
versus a general topic is both interesting and rational and even
significant, but like all distinctions it is subjective and there's
always a gray area.
I'm choosing to eliminate consideration of any distinction. Your
mileage may vary.
Jim
--
James M. Galvin <galvin(_at_)acm(_dot_)org>
co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself