Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050120015436.0e9a00e0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:03:58 +0100
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>,
	Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <41EEEB6B.2060405@thinkingcat.com>
References: <1D04D4A5E0234FFAE46AB913@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
 <6.2.0.14.2.20050119112204.0585b710@pop.mindspring.com>
 <41EEEB6B.2060405@thinkingcat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-75495DCC

At 00:21 20/01/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>Interesting...
>To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with
>decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.


>To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement
>to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining
>those requirements), I disagree.  I think it's a little
>heavy-handed to have to instigate a recall procedure if the
>IAD (or IAOC) seem not to have heard the *community's* requirements
>for meeting location.
>
>So, (how) can we make the distinction without creating a
>decision tree of epic proportions?

Just say that they are to consult the IETF when they do not feel sure about 
the "best needs of the IETF". A recall procedure would probably not be 
called the first time, even if the issue is important (preserving 
stability), but can be called even on a small issue if they repeatedly do 
not consult the IETF when a disagreement/uncertainity is obvious.

So, the recall procedure is not on a possibly disputed case - the dispute 
would harm the whole IETF - but on a repeated Management poor practice 
where accumulated displeasure will probably make the case less disputed. It 
also permits IETF to vote warnings.

jfc