[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-06 16:05:59

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.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
IETF mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>