Firstly, it's not for me to prejudge the IESG's conclusions
about IONs, but I would suggest that any ION issued by the
IESG implicitly carries the same status as any other IESG
statement, unless rescinded, so I don't quite share your concern.
However, the deeper question is whether the "discuss criteria"
*should* be promoted to BCP (which effectively binds future
IESGs as well as the current IESG). That is worth some
discussion. My experience on both sides of the fence is that
having the criteria spelled out has been extremely valuable
to authors, WGs, reviewers and the IESG itself. I'm a bit less
certain whether they should be made binding. Flexibility
leaves space for applying common sense.
On 2008-03-07 09:01, Ted Hardie wrote:
The call for comments on IONs seems to have ended without
clarifying the effect of the end of the experiment on the standing
of current IONs. For most of them, I honestly don't think the
standing is much of an issue. But for the "discuss criteria" ION,
I believe it is a serious issue. At this point, it is difficult to know
whether the discuss criteria document is in force or not, and the
extent to which the issuing body is bound by it.
I think this is a very bad thing.
I call on Russ to restore this document to its original status as
an Internet Draft and to process it as a BCP. IESG DISCUSSes are
a very serious part of our process at this point. Having a community
agreed standard to which IESG members could be held was always a better
path than than a document approved only by the IESG. Now that
the ION experiment is over and the status of its document is in
limbo, things are even worse.
The current document is here:
for those readers playing the home game.
IETF mailing list
IETF mailing list