[Eligibility-discuss] New ELEGY working group -- startup

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, all.

As the ELEGY working group charter:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/elegy/about/
...was approved by the IESG yesterday and the Secretariat magic seems
to be done, let's hit the ether running and get started.

Michael Richardson and I (Barry Leiba) are your co-chairs, and we've
just had a planning call.

The first order of business is setting a starting point for
discussion.  For that we have the draft draft-duke-elegy-rfc8989bis:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duke-elegy-rfc8989bis/

We propose that draft as a reasonable starting point, keeping in mind
that every detail in it remains up for discussion and change until we
have working group rough consensus on the details.

So this is a call for the working group to adopt
draft-duke-elegy-rfc8989bis as draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis.  If you
object to or have any comments on the adoption, please post them here
by Friday, 9 Sept.

This is also a call for comments on whether Martin Duke should have a
co-editor who is not on the IESG.  If that matters to you, please
comment on that point.  If you think it doesn't matter, you may also
comment to that effect.

This also also opens general comments on the issue at hand, which is
updating RFC 8713 Section 4.14 to set NomCom eligibility criteria.
Please use the content of draft-duke-elegy-rfc8989bis for now and get
the discussion started: let's not wait until the call for adoption is
formally over, and let's get the discussion started without delay.

Please respond in this thread about the adoption and editor question.
Please start another thread to discuss the eligibility criteria themselves.

Barry, as chair