John C Klensin wrote:
Hmm. If people believe that this document should be processed
as a BCP, thereby presumably constraining long-term IESG
behavior and adding to our procedural core, should it be added
to the PUFI agenda for preliminary discussion?
A series of postings by sitting area directors about their commitment to
following a document says nothing about the commitment of any future area
If the document is merely a reference to be used internally by the IESG, then
needs no formal standing.
If the document is meant as formal criteria to ensure transparency and
accountability of the IESG, then it needs formal standing, which means formal
adoption by the IETF community.
IETF mailing list