--On Friday, May 07, 2010 09:29 -0700 Dave CROCKER
<dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net> wrote:
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.
To the extent to which we want to open this can of worms (or are
forced into it by necessity), there is a second "fundamental
'constitutional' difference" here. As I read BCP 101, it is
pretty clear that the IAOC (or IASA generally) are forbidden to
make policy or carry out experiments whose implications extend
beyond the financial/administrative. If I recall, the IAOC
decided to initiate the "day pass" experiment using exactly the
model you describe above: the community was asked for input and
then the IAOC made the decision based on the IAOC's preferences.
I assume that no one thought of the Nomcom implications despite
the presence of the IAB Chair and IETF Chair and some IAB and
IESG-appointed representatives on the IAOC -- people whose role
is presumably to catch just such things. But, if there is a
constitutional process issue here, it extends well beyond the
IESG issuing a process clarification about the implications of
an experiment.
And, yes, a regular IETF participant who attended the last
meeting on a day pass should have been able to know whether that
would count for the Nomcom qualification or not. But nothing
prevented a person in that position from asking the question
before he or she registered, in which case we would,
appropriately, have had this discussion prior to Anaheim.
Again, I'm not suggesting that a working group is necessary.
There isn't that much to discuss.
Agreed.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf