On 5/7/2010 8:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
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.
There is a rather fundamental "constitutional" difference between having the
IESG assess community rough consensus, versus having the IESG ask for input and
then make the decision based on IESG preferences. In the first, the formal
authority resides with the community; in the second it resides with the IESG.
Again, I'm not suggesting that a working group is necessary. There isn't that
much to discuss.
On 5/7/2010 7:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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.
It didn't wreak havoc with Nomcom for last year. Why will it have that effect
for this year?
(On the other hand, classing the day pass as applying to a visitor rather than
participant could be a clever way to avoid the constitutional question.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf