Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting

At 23:53 22/02/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> writes:
>
>     JFC> I think we all are in agreement except on an idea Eudardo
>     JFC> Mendez gave me. I will rephrase it as "if someting tastes as
>     JFC> a WG, smells like a WG, its charter should be approved like
>     JFC> for a WG". The non-WG list is only subject to the approbation
>     JFC> of an AD. This opens the door to too many possible contention
>     JFC> and COI suspicions. Logic and ethic calls for non-WG list
>     JFC> receiving WG authority rights to be subject to WG creation
>     JFC> cycle (obviously far faster). I think it should result from a
>     JFC> simple change in the registration form and page display. It
>     JFC> will say the status of the non-WG list approval and
>     JFC> details. To be on the list an AD approval is enough. To get
>     JFC> full WG priviledges the non-WG list will need to have the
>     JFC> "IAB reviewed", "IESG approved", Area and ADs, etc.
>
>In principle this sounds fine.  My confusion stems from the fact that
>it's actually more restrictions that are applied to IETF lists than
>privileges.
>
>Here is what an IETf list implies to me:
>* open participation
>* an appeals path
>* open archive
>* IETf IPR
>
>What privileges do you see?

I am not sure about what you ask.
Their priviledge is to be an IETF list. This implies constraints 
(IESG approval, IAB charter review,...)
Their priviledge is reduced contrainst. AD approval is enough for 
those not deciding for the IETF. No Charter, just a few lines 
describing their topic.
jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf