Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Barry said...
>>> While this is certainly expedient, it's quite open-ended, entirely
>>> left up to the judgment of the sitting IAB about what "reasonable
>>> modifications" might mean.  Certainly, with a by-law change that adds
>>> a board appointment, most anyone would consider it reasonable to just
>>> add that appointment with the appropriate periodicity, and it's
>>> reasonable not to have to rev this document for that.

Brian said...
>>Yes, but I think this needs to be circumscribed. Wouldn't it be better
>>to require that BCP 77 is appropriately updated within 12 months in
>>such a case, i.e. trust the IAB to do the right thing but also commit
>>to updating the rules accordingly?

Joe said...
> I guess I'm ok with that. We could also trust the IAB to know the
> difference between a substantive change and a minor one.

Actually, I'm fine with trusting the IAB here, as it's limited to
appointments that it is given the power to make; I just want to make
absolutely sure that the community knows what it's agreeing to.
That's why I'd rather simply shift this to an IAB statement now, and
make it clear that BCP 77 as a whole is now obsolete, and that the
process that BCP 77 formerly described is now described in the IAB
statement.

[To keep this in perspective, I'm not going to hold out on this point;
it's a suggestion -- one that I think makes it fully clear what's
being changed in how we document this process.]

Barry