On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 07:27:48AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
assessment of public rough consensus. But the actual decision /must/ be
IETF-wide and it must be published as an addendum RFC asserting IETF-wide
consensus.
Even for this experiment (the evaluation conditions for which have
always been a little hazy to me, but never mind that)? That is, the
statement explicitly notes that an update to the RFC is needed for any
permanent state of affairs. This just clarifies the rules temporarily
so that we can get on with picking the next NomCom. Surely if we have
to get a new RFC out the door, it's going to wreak havoc with with
NomCom process this year; but we have the problem right now, because
someone could be eligible or not for this year's NomCom depending on
whether the day pass they used in Anaheim or Hiroshima is counted.
I think that, as a temporary measure to deal with the current
experiment, the IESG taking a decision is acceptable. Excluding
day-pass-only people is completely defensible because the rules were
written in a period when day passes didn't exist. So nobody who was
then eligible is made ineligible by this decision. (It is not
relevant that someone "would have" used a day pass had it previously
been available: we do not make rules for every possible world, only
for the one we're in.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf