--On Friday, May 07, 2010 09:29 -0700 Dave CROCKER
<[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
