On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, januar 16, 2006 16:00:58 +0200 Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From Principles, P4 is indeed a tricky one. I'd say that "Formal
consent from [current leadership]" is too strong wording. I'd say that
they must be allowed to comment on the proposal. Whether they could
consent to it or not is IMHO irrelevant. The whole point is that if
there would be IETF consensus for making the choice, I'm not sure whether
it's OK that any of {IESG,IAB,IAOC} alone should be able to block the
process. (I'd be OK if some form of consent was needed from a majority
of the bodies.)
Formally, I think we either need to have formal consent or a revolution....
remember that at the time of Kobe, the IAB formally accepted the output of
the POISED process, so we have a tradition of being formally correct when we
revolutionize....
If the next steps are the right ones, IESG consent will be obtainable, I
think; some procedures for getting it are messier than others.
Indeed, I don't think this is a major problem. In my opinion, what's
more important would be that IAOC, IESG, IAB etc. know that they
will be asked to COMMENT, but not DISCUSS.
I believe this may have a positive impact on the amount of time spent
obtaining consensus and/or consent.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
|
Try Searching:
servers, voip, java, networking, microsoft ...
|
|
|
| 
