Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Pete Resnick <> Tue, 31 March 2020 05:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988D03A0C3A for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:12:40 -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=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vwhWXwe2phjT for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B760F3A0C36 for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408DEA5E8048; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 00:12:30 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TxbyZsZaXknf; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 00:12:29 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35E5FA5E8041; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 00:12:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Pete Resnick" <>
To: "Barry Leiba" <>
Cc: "IETF discussion list" <>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 00:12:27 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
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 05:12:41 -0000

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 

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.

Pete Resnick
All connections to the world are tenuous at best