IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice

Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com> Wed, 20 October 2021 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brong@fastmailteam.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED02E3A0637 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=W/BzeZHQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Z9+KX3Hf
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3g4Euvn5sPbO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D84833A040A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6BDF3200F9F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:34:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap43 ([10.202.2.93]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:34:32 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=eHTdOzr OIPaQVMWcorFrX226+C59oJxm7w2JWLZ3Jj8=; b=W/BzeZHQU9bTYub7CB9CDws maVquFqph+xmLb6YcQP49xLCovCRgIhfPbiXEw/0agOxaUcfc1Ga1zddDZJ8a789 J0ZLwCZufAMR4eIQF/1eSCryawt10K/uj8Z6hwj7iyWRQv0HFCwX9GxAoK4fAOrJ o5ZZefRvyyHi97ZlZW44mrMYHKTD6b7TX/WOYR3hqWP9uZjytpSrUNOKndHF1DcP 7FmeRpRg8plRzNNQRwsaa6xeEEMm4xtvdSURCxmhTTbH8D1D4s5J9QqPRSbmjg9t yDK9sHLw3TYHEVzy6/Cypf7+NG5Zgo0FFBrOfXR959/X2K78OFJLS47ri4XL00w= =
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; 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=fm1; bh=eHTdOz rOIPaQVMWcorFrX226+C59oJxm7w2JWLZ3Jj8=; b=Z9+KX3HfhroW+chYqL9C84 4cVEES5Qoh3I9Fd5nQdb+SgDYY74n+KQpb5WwFA3VHvOemBTE2YgRYzgVPlYw0nM JaTbog9KsgZRf7Hckc5Yb7X+shSVeGMApdRAErC07xOOkjnVto0wdrXO51rFuWdg b+GPCRNpsUX/RpA1DMTrLaJTAkcnpKDW/gCEId6ulkyXDmZuzP7qzAO2d35Qq/Oz EjzaDff5Ba5td9ECWD84Jb2E9XqqdLxB0AlB2xtUrtqiJfFjPFuXCrBqO/0n0wwV xChsaVz5CXevKt0bu1IqTYzkafEvTNaAGk1vIrpVCcjG+4F3mv6slaBvrTQcpagw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:-ChwYXuKsIyrVAru8TyGT9375uKcDuy3Eat00uRhQmDkNf69PezgSA> <xme:-ChwYYeU7x4U-jrPMSeZ67OKOhryFusB-kS49FpRKV6ZBONk8m4S72ny-TpiPq_2T 2XqR3glx0g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddvgedgjeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtd erreerredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfuehrohhnucfiohhnugifrghnrgdfuceosghrohhnghes fhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvudeuieehgf dvheeuueejjeeuudfgiefgveetfeelteeffffgtdejjefgueduvdenucevlhhushhtvghr ufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsrhhonhhgsehfrghsthhmrg hilhhtvggrmhdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:-ChwYazfR2EUfT6tWeTkRGtLBe5FflW-fwezkh5AYcJmLUAHD2LGFg> <xmx:-ChwYWMwAp7dY1bHKx7t0g9vaXyseA5M3K-6uOKrJe7JdHRoca1_kg> <xmx:-ChwYX9Q7-_mUwFyd_TMC0eI2__fa5TBUBfjo6j20HaTs6oRfD3rIw> <xmx:-ChwYaKp270C5c-n3avU_hfQwoaZu8eZXboqloMhbuSX38ta35I7EQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 371A9AC0362; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:34:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-1369-gd055fb5e7c-fm-20211018.002-gd055fb5e
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <0a9abbef-c149-493d-a0bc-8728f3964bd4@dogfood.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKeHDr7EJy4hf5GyS9W0PwpQ0C05TGtS4Gc_ihEFeQtsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <163465875866.13316.15860075014903480611@ietfa.amsl.com> <EA85619D-83D6-409B-AAE7-C13850B18BA0@yahoo.co.uk> <CALaySJKeHDr7EJy4hf5GyS9W0PwpQ0C05TGtS4Gc_ihEFeQtsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 01:34:11 +1100
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="351e279e5ae1415bad36fb0dd158e696"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NT84VaR9KYDALwp3rmcYdzw2zwE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:34:53 -0000

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021, at 00:13, Barry Leiba wrote:
> The only way we have, at this point, to make community appointments is
> through the NomCom, and I think it would be a bad approach to add SAA
> positions to the NomCom's slate.

I definitely agree with this.  While there are some advantages to having the NomCom appoint everything, the SAA role isn't one of the things that needs it - likewise we don't have the NomCom appoint all working group chairs, instead we have the ADs appoint them as part of their responsibilities.

I do understand Lloyd's issue as well - he had a particularly messy run-in with the SAA in a circumstance where the SAA was being used to shut down a very uncomfortable discussion about a publication which was seen to be claiming a consensus which had not been established.

If the SAA was the final arbiter of what's acceptable in the IETF, then I'd agree that we need a more rigorous way to appoint them - but, they aren't.  The escalation point for a problem with the SAA is the IETF chair, and if you ALSO have a problem with the chair, then there's a dispute resolution or recall processes.  So the SAA isn't the final arbiter, so I'm quite happy for the SAAs to continue to be appointed by the chair.

Cheers,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  brong@fastmailteam.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email