Re: Another IESG Charter revision

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

--On tirsdag, april 08, 2003 12:22:00 -0700 Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> 
wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> > I tend to agree. But, note, just what the "right thing" is has in some
> > sense become a political question. :-(
> Of course, but that's what the NomCom is for. If my feeling of the
> "right thing" is way far from what most of the community feels, I'll
> be told so, but I think it is important that we can exercise our
> judgement.
the nomcom works on a 2-year cycle per AD, so it's a slow feedback process.

What Scott replied back to me when I asked was this:

> the written process does not have a individual-ad-iesg path
> (it also does not have a statement that says that the
> individual-ad-iesg path was not permitted)
>
> rfc 2026 sec 4.2.3 does have the ruleset "should be submitted
> directly to the RFC Editor"
>
> so this has been the almost universially used path for as long
> as I was on the IESG - I expect that there were a few docs
> (though only one comes to mind - the power over mpls one)
> that took the individual-ad-iesg-path but not many
>
> also Klensin specifically complained that the individual-ad-iesg
> path was being improperly used to give priority to some individual
> IDs (he did this at a plenary session in the last year)
> his complaint was that he had heard a number of people say that
> specific ADs said that they would push thorugh individual IDs
> quickly if the ID was sent to them (and also the ADs were saying
> that this was better than going the RFC Ed route because that was too
> slow)
> fwiw - I think that there should be a public discussion if
> the IESG wants to have a way to give some individual non-wg IDs
> priority over others  (which is what I think is being asked here)
> my main message is a request to define clearly what IDs can get this
> treatment in a way that folks can understand and so that people
> can not complain of unfair treatment
(extracted out of 3 different messages)

If we want to claim to be bound by 2026, we shouldn't break a "should" from 
that document without any particular reason to.

I suggested "AD thinks it's important to the IETF" as a criterion, which 
should give us the latitude for doing this when important - and if it's not 
important, why bother?

Remember - these procedures are for Informational/Experimental individual 
submissions ONLY.

Note to Thomas: If I have the SLP "set" right, at least one is currently 
headed for Proposed (slp-remote-da-discovery), and another in the queue for 
Experimental was originally proposed for Proposed (slp-da-interaction).
slp-customization seems to be the only one that has in fact followed this 
path. (Standard disclaimer about finding all the right docs apply....)

            Harald