Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Spencer,
At 08:29 PM 17-04-2019, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>That could be a fine plan. It assumes that The S is For Steering.

:-)

>Another orthogonal Fine Plan could be for an AD to ask the IAB to 
>provide a BOF Shepherd to help the proponents - which almost 
>certainly means "more people than just SM" - to produce a BOF 
>request that will result in a successful BOF, so participants who 
>rarely if ever see each other face to face don't have to figure that out.
>
>The procedure for this is described at 
>https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2012-2/iab-member-roles-in-evaluating-new-work-proposals/, 
>unless the IAB has changed that procedure since 2012.
>
>And if this discussion is only about the definition of who is 
>eligible to sign recall petitions, whether with or without John 
>Klensin's proposal, I note that 
>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-nomcom/ is still an 
>active list, and seems to be exactly the right place for limited 
>discussion. If what's wanted is POISED2019, that's another mailing 
>list, of course, which any AD can approve.

Thanks for the helpful suggestions.  Several years ago, you and I had 
a discussion on that mailing list.

BCP 39 is about architectural oversight.  Anyway, a "BOF" is 
described as a session for
"market research" and technical "brainstorming".  There are working 
group which have been formed without a "BOF".  If I am not mistaken, 
I may have chaired that type of working group.  As for a "Fine Plan", 
it will be very difficult to find/justify funding for the subject 
(please see the email from the General Area Director).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy