Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 09/01/15 22:10, John C Klensin wrote:
> But maybe requiring an update to
> the BCP but avoiding a requirement to open the base
> specification would respond to part --I think the most important
> part, but he may disagree-- of that concern.

Even if an update to the BCP were needed, I'd still like
this idea. And I guess someone could just write an I-D
that updates section x.y.z only.

My concern is only that x.y.z could get out of date quickly
in the next few years if (as I hope) we get better and
better at the remote thing (and not having been in Hawaii,
that was better than I expected, though hardly any fun
at all).

But probably better to figure out what continued eligibilty
rules we'd like now, and then think about how those might
evolve before we write x.y.z. At that point we should know
better if my concern is worth worrying about or not.

S.