Re: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-variance-00.txt

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

(Not picking Keith's comment, in particular: it was just convenient to
use for the reply here.)

For those of you who think the IESG should not (or is not allowed to)
exercise judgment here and make a one-time exception for this
exceptional situation:

Please advise how you think we can get the NomCom eligibility question
sorted out IN TIME to seat a 2020-21 NomCom, when we normally need to
ask for volunteers within the next 6 weeks.

Barry

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 7:21 PM Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 3/27/20 7:15 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> > For your reading pleasure, here is the Last Call discussion on that
> > statement, so there is precedent:
> >
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&email_list=ietf&q=subject%3A(Policy%20Statement%20on%20the%20Day%20Pass%20Experiment)&as=1&so=date
> >
>
> Sure, but there's not a written consensus-approved process to approve an
> IESG statement that's not reflected in an RFC.   And IESG doesn't get to
> dictate how nomcom operates.
>
> >> I am not sure that it's within the IESG's purview to make such policy
> >> statements, especially since nomcom is not an IESG function.
> >
> > The IESG is the consensus caller for BCPs, and the NomCom process is a
> > BCP process, so I can see the argument. Also, the IESG was defining
> > attendance at an IETF meeting, which could arguably be a reasonable
> > thing for the IESG to do.
>
> For other purposes, say whether someone gets a t-shirt, perhaps.   Not
> for nomcom purposes, IMO.
>
> Keith
>
>