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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 28 February 2016 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBFF1AC3B8; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 11:53:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VIu74VvgFv3i; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 11:53:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D3EF1AC3B7; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 11:53:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1aa7Oi-000Pyp-Qi; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:52:56 -0500
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:52:51 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)
Message-ID: <30A65F1EDC5394C9DFBB4F69@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <56D34119.2030806@gmail.com>
References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC4RtVDpMsFuSMHPvkT2vXngGJkNsWDqL-g1EipcCUNjqa2Ssg@mail.gmail.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <CALaySJJfyikA7o5CEiQvbjNF-d7EzUi-TTsTWnxo2yb_jBibag@mail.gmail.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com> <CAC4RtVDvN8fF4ZAH3-2MA4h3FTbUd37NQsy484eoCXy5MBhoGA@mail.gmail.com> <A49865510140628ADEB3DCB6@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <B5ECD878-81C0-42DE-9170-CAE0529402B6@gmail.com> <56D34119.2030806@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2E5b8rYkTCunEUQ0pI_WgIati20>
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, IAB <iab@iab.org>, "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:53:04 -0000


--On Monday, February 29, 2016 07:48 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, OK.
> 
> NEW NEW:
>   If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the
>   number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the
>   timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding
>   modifications to the frequency and the timing of the
>   processes embodied in this document. Such changes will
>   be announced via an IAB statement. The IAB must then
>   propose a corresponding update to this document within
>   one year.

Much improved.  FWIW, I'd prefer "should" in the last sentence
to "must".  While I think they are unlikely, one can imagine
circumstances that would prevent them from doing so as well as
debates over what "propose" means.  If they fail to do so, the
community presumably has ways to hold the IAB accountable that
avoid the constitutional crisis around this particular issue
implied by "must".  I also think "one year" is too long as a
target. Perhaps "The IAB must then initiate work on a
corresponding update to this document with the expectation that
a proposal will be completed in under a year." or words to that
effect.

thanks,
    john