Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting

>>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> writes:

    JFC> 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?

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

Normally when you want to require an approval process like chartering
it is because there is some power or authority being delegated to a
list.  If the only thing that being an IETF list gets you is
additional constraints, why do we need to have a complicated
chartering process?

Now if you propose that whenever an IETF list is given authority--over
a registry, over some approval process etc--it needs a charter and
that charter needs community review, I agree with you.

--Sam

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