Re: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-variance-00.txt

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 27 Mar 2020, at 16:43, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3933> would be almost perfect for 
> this except that it takes too long for an existential emergency (which 
> I believe seating a Nomcom that the community [agreed] should be 
> seated would qualify). Perhaps it's worth explaining why that BCP 
> isn't appropriate in this case. 

Good point. 3933 also requires the publication of an RFC, in its case 
Experimental. For a one-time or short-lived variance, an RFC seems too 
heavyweight. I'll definitely add a reference and explain in -01.

> Other than that, I'd only suggest using a numbered list in Section 2 
> so people can follow the steps more clearly.

I'll give it a go. It will take quite a bit of re-arranging of text. I 
was being lazy and copy/pasting from 2026. I'll see what I can do. Maybe 
wait for -02.

> And thanks for taking this on.

So far, it's been pretty easy. I'll reserve judgement before saying 
"you're welcome".

> Spencer, who would be fine if the community just said "Do The Right 
> Thing. no process change required", but who would feel better if we 
> knew the community had said that ... 

I've already seen a couple of comments that amounted to (at least) 
cringes to that suggestion, given that every proposal I've seen for 
NomCom 2020-2021 is going to be a rule change of some sort to 8713, so 
I'm not too sanguine about "no process change required".

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best