At 00:21 20/01/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Interesting...
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with
decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement
to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining
those requirements), I disagree. I think it's a little
heavy-handed to have to instigate a recall procedure if the
IAD (or IAOC) seem not to have heard the *community's* requirements
for meeting location.
So, (how) can we make the distinction without creating a
decision tree of epic proportions?
Just say that they are to consult the IETF when they do not feel sure about
the "best needs of the IETF". A recall procedure would probably not be
called the first time, even if the issue is important (preserving
stability), but can be called even on a small issue if they repeatedly do
not consult the IETF when a disagreement/uncertainity is obvious.
So, the recall procedure is not on a possibly disputed case - the dispute
would harm the whole IETF - but on a repeated Management poor practice
where accumulated displeasure will probably make the case less disputed. It
also permits IETF to vote warnings.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf