Hi Paul,
At 6:10 PM +0000 11/28/04, Paul Vixie wrote:
any way you can work a "sunshine law" in will work for me. i'm
concerned about the ways in which ietf has acted "in my name" WITHOUT my
consent or knowledge. i know from private responses to my previous
threads on that topic that i'm not alone, not even rare, in having that
concern.
An earlier comment from Brian Carpenter, to which several people
agreed, indicated that we should consider the need for an IETF
"sunshine law" separately from the IASA structure.
In my copious free time, I am in the process of writing a proposed
"sunshine law" BCP based loosely on the Missouri Sunshine Law, which
is (IMO) the best model that I have found (where "best" == short,
effective, reasonable exceptions) that I've found. I hope to have
something to circulate within the next few weeks, but I'd be happy to
see someone else propose one sooner... :-)
...if a small band of "us" wishes to act in a leadership
capacity, take responsibility for forward progress, choose and manage an
administrator, and represent "our" position in discussions with
meatspace government, then by i insist upon knowing more about "their"
deliberations and decisions and actions than has ever been made public
in the history of "the ietf". we can start by making "transparency" a
first class object, right up there with "consensus" -- even though by
most definitions you cannot have consensus without transparency, in ietf
we have absolutely separated them and so we have to explicitly reinstate
one.
This is why I've been harping on the concept of "informed consensus"
and banging on the fact that it is the IESG's job to help the
community reach _informed_ consensus on these topics, which means
that it is our responsibility to keep the community well-enough
informed to reach meaningful consensus.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf