Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07.txt> (IAB, IESG, IETF Trust and IETF LLC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF Nominating and Recall Committees) to Best Current Practice

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi SM,

below...

On 27-Jun-19 07:11, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Alissa,
> At 10:56 AM 26-06-2019, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> Section 7.1.1 of the draft specifies that a recall petition as a 
>> "Community Petition".  However, it does not provide any rationale 
>> for restricting signatories to "members of the IETF community" who 
>> can afford to attend IETF meetings.  Why are there two classes of 
>> members in the IETF?
>>>
>>> The above-mentioned restriction is contrary to one of the goals 
>> of the Internet Standards Process, which is fairness.  Unfairness 
>> is not be usually considered as a "Best Common Practice" and yet 
>> this draft intends to "standardize" it.  It would be quite 
>> unfortunate if the members of the IESG condoned the procedure 
>> specified in Section 7.1.1.
>>
>> In response to the Gen-ART review and follow-on discussion, the 
>> following sentence has been added to the -08 version of the document:
>>
>> "This revision addresses only the changes required for IASA 2.0; 
>> should the community agree on other changes, they will be addressed 
>> in future documents."
> 
> If I am not mistaken, the process for this Last Call is based on BCP 
> 9.  The proposed sentence unfortunately does not address the comments 
> which I sent on the Last Call.

Maybe it was a bit too summarised, but the scope of *this* update to
the NomCom process was (according to the charter of the IASA2 WG in general)
to make the changes required by the creation of IETF LLC and the closing
of the IAOC. So I think the response is correct: state this scope restriction
in the document and move on.

The whole NomCom process probably does need a re-examination; the issue
of how to enfranchise remote attendees is only part of it, I think, and
there may be even more fundamental issues. But I think that should be a
separate process (probably starting by somebody building a list of perceived
problems). It will take some time, and approving the essential changes due
to IETF LLC is somewhat urgent.

Regards
    Brian