Dave,
For what it is worth, I agree that we've not communicated enough about the
development of the final IESG statement. I did respond to one general class of
points made about the draft policy, we did consider all input, and we made the
changes that we felt were possible and justified by the input. But it would
certainly have been good to provide a detailed response to all input and
continue the dialogue. My apologies. In my defence I wanted to have a stated
policy and a contact person in place for the meeting that was about to start.
I do however agree that a strong, full IETF (rough) consensus policy as a BCP
would be very desirable. That has in fact been at the back of our heads (but
again not communicated well). Remember that we have only made an IESG statement
about the topic. I would actually like to make the stronger statement - either
as a standalone BCP or as part of 3184bis. I think you'll agree that if there
ever was a truly bad situation, such a policy would be better support for
action that might be required.
I certainly believe that we should pursue such a policy.
Jari