For context, here is what I wrote on Github on 24 Dec:
I think there's an issue that needs to be brought back to the RSAB/RSWG:draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes is inches from being approved by the IESG. That document is somewhat tightly bound to the IETF and to the IESG. However, given that this document is dependent on RFC 2418 and that document updates RFC 2418, we might want to add a few words to reference the soon-to-be-approved draft.This is intended as a very loose strawman example: The RSWG shall make use of the moderators and procedures specified by draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes, with the exception that appeals/disputes are to be resolved as described in Section 3.2.4 of this memo, with the RSAB playing the role of the IESG / area directors.The process here, however, is that if I think there's an issue, it should be discussed with the RSAB. Before I do that, I just want to check with the RPC and authors to see if I have the wrong end of the stick.
Eliot On 06.01.2026 07:36, Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi Paul, On 06.01.2026 03:35, Paul Hoffman wrote:Greetings. Before Alexis and I start our review, I have a significant procedural question. In<https://github.com/rfc-editor/AUTH48-rfc9920/pull/1>, Eliot (I assume wearing his shepherd hat) proposes a significant policy change be added to the document during AUTH48 without asking the RSWG. He does not give specific text, just a "very loose strawman".Correction: I asked authors for your thoughts before bringing the matter back to the RSAB. As shepherd, the only thing I can do is do that. It is then for the RSAB to decide whether the document should be held/returned to the RSWG.Eliot
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
