John C Klensin wrote:
> My, my, do I love being quoted out of context on a comment that
> was made four years ago, and was intended as humorous rather
> than a serious comment on the process.
Sorry, I was not aware that an email to an IETF WG list with
a subject "The appeals process and the IAB" and starts with
"... have discussed with a few people..." was intended as
humorous.
Anyway, let's agree to disagree:
1. I am strongly opposing the current 1601bis, but who cares
anyway? There is no way to make an appeal, and therefore,
I believe it is a WIN-WIN situation: most likely that charter
will be approved, and I will save ISOC membership fee.
2. I have no problem with the informality at the WG and IESG
level, including sending humorous emails to a list :^).
However, I believe that the IAB serves as a shim between
that informality and its formal umbrella organization (ISOC).
3. I believe that the IESG is doing fine at its level except
it should stop signing treaties and MoUs with other organizations.
But, I do not believe that the IESG needs a super-IESG
(i.e. the current IAB) for technical oversight purpose.
Even if the IESG needs one, an expert advisory panel
could sever that purpose.
4. I believe that the IAB should deal with things that the IESG
is not interested anyway, including to deal with the formality
of the *REAL* community.
5. Case closed.
regrets,
--
- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim -- VLSM-TJT -- http://rms46.vlsm.org/ -
- Always select ShutDown from the StartMenu - M$Windows after crash
