Re: Another IESG Charter revision

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Harald,

>> 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.

I meant it fixing the really bad bugs. Of course ADs have to
be in contact with the community and listen to what folks say.

> What Scott replied back to me when I asked was this:
[...]
> (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?

That would work for me.

Note though that "important to the IETF" is also subjective and we will
have to exercise our judgement to gauge the importance ;-p

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

Yep.

Alex