Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Keith Moore <> Tue, 31 March 2020 05:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE183A1B74 for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HqGV71V_s-mN for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81F023A1B73 for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24795C0298; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 01:31:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 01:31:45 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=7XCzWC AtTnhNBK2GxwsgVhpxWDl1x63odtYhU9uCGVs=; b=gquMhUJzaNt3PnVftI2Y4r kKT71dtEYf5KAG8yhgVmgweh2/tDL500bgHYTy16RApA5hd2eL2QSgkTTfumJRlJ 5S7EyP2heJ42SkbXpnuMheSRqgPJ2irx10pbwZ78gjjK3D6l30VSZR97KlPRy3x0 N8+3D7JLaEr5acIjbjriEpVoB9FTPsfX1UlFCNmq9ckDda39FN/fpicNZn25IWKr hM49gkriGIxPMCvO/vvFrOQ/5qnsqWBJb8ZAm8drzyDGsrZOcyv7CC1Nqv4EK3Hd CWENO5QPFFE4J+V8idRYBNPWunHSbSGAaLC/XwBYqfHImsmmO5pOwS3/XM3TN9yg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:wdWCXm3gImqdneO4zCgk_LJs8SkgkHaT7REAId4SUyaDdgTOFXNXmA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudeiiedgleehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgesrgdtre ertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrdduhe enucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohho rhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:wdWCXknGxiUJ0Eiakk7ohGUWvFtcoLEjauaUwDFSfZs258_D9TpRPA> <xmx:wdWCXl5G6BRRUZOQQfvXWY4K8LK9Hk4eIsU7ndhDhtTvn6Kwk2Xw4g> <xmx:wdWCXgxwm3GDmF9-__KEwudxkkG3ugQQ70ne1RrQxYW4gtnh7WIp4A> <xmx:wdWCXva1UWbsdDSkBzWPAg86hctRUzPGZVy2DJrAAeoRxQ5WVvliGA>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2D38E306CAE7; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 01:31:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 01:31:44 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------EE6C6D0CCAA0871995233F83"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 05:31:48 -0000

On 3/31/20 1:12 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> On 30 Mar 2020, at 23:25, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> 2. We are concerned that rushing such a process by, for example, 
>> posting a draft now and immediately last-calling it without a normal 
>> period of discussion would call into question the legitimacy of our 
>> consensus process and would set a bad precedent.
> Barry, I think the IESG has made an error, specifically on this point. 
> Last-calling a document for 4 weeks is precisely designed for the 
> situation where most (if not all) of the community has not had a 
> chance to comment on it. And in the only specifically documented 
> variance procedure in the IETF (2026 section 9), this kind of thing is 
> exactly what it anticipates: The IESG writes up what it thinks it's 
> heard about what the variance should be, it immediately puts it out 
> for Last Call, it takes those 4 weeks to assess the consensus of the 
> IETF and adjusts the document to suit, and then it publishes. 
> Following that same model has a much better chance of standing up to 
> questions of legitimacy than the IESG proposal: collecting opinions 
> with no text to look at, and then in 4 weeks writing some text that 
> the IESG thinks represents the consensus and calling it approved. That 
> is inviting a great deal of contention.
> You (or I or any number of other people in this discussion) can write 
> up and post a draft in less than 24 hours. The IESG can immediately 
> Last Call it. Folks can then discuss the document and the IESG to make 
> adjustments to it over the next 4 weeks. It can be acted upon once 
> approved. To do otherwise goes against the openness of our processes.
> Please, IESG, reconsider your decision on this, and quickly. You can 
> do the right thing in a reasonable amount of time without trying to do 
> something that is inviting a protracted process fight. 

+1.   I was about to raise the same objection, but Pete's response is 
more succinct and precise.