Scott writes:
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.4 says
3.4 Relationship of the IAOC to Existing IETF Leadership
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
performance of the IASA. However, the nature of the IAOC's work
involves treating the IESG and IAB as internal customers. The IAOC
and the IAD should not consider their work successful unless the IESG
and IAB are satisfied with the administrative support that they are
receiving.
I'd suggest that the last sentence be changed to:
"The IAOC and the IAD should not consider their work successful unless
the IESG and IAB are satisfied with the administrative
support that the IETF is receiving."
Makes sense to me somewhat.
However, the first sentence basically speaks to the effect that IETF
should be happy. There is lots of extra admin support that IESG and IAB
will get from the IASA that is not so visible to the larger IETF.
And I think that is what we were trying to capture.
So in light of this, would you still suggest your change of text?
Bert
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf