Spencer: I suggested the
one-of--your-three-meetings-can-be-with-a-day-pass option during IESG
discussion. My thought was that day job demands and other reasons might
make someone prefer to take an occasional day pass instead of a full
meeting, and I'd rather err on the side of allowing more volunteers than
being too strict. My understanding of the rest of the IESG's opinion was
that they did not want to see any reduction in required exposure to the
IETF process. Personally, I think the difference would be minimal. But
so would the help that the relaxed rule would bring. I'd be surprised if
there's a single person from the usual 100 or so Nomcom volunteers who
has used a day pass. So I at least did not feel strongly about arguing
this either way. (But I'm persuaded by Dave's argument that the rule
should be simple.)
Dave, Kre: I'm not so convinced that there would be any problem even if
the IESG (or IAOC) decided how to interpret the RFC-specified rules in a
practical situation. However, I don't think we need to argue this
because there is an ongoing Last Call and the intention is to ask the
community for feedback and then make a decision. Even if we did this
with a BCP RFC and a working group, there would still be a similar Last
Call and an IESG approval decision. You could, of course, make the
argument that this is important enough to be permanently recorded in an
RFC as opposed to an IESG statement. However, my understanding is that
the day pass is still an experiment, so you could argue that its an
overkill. I have no problem doing this as an RFC either, however.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf