Re: IAOC Request for community feedback

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Tue, 23 October 2012 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5DA11E80DC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WYX1ofEelK+W for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2319A11E80A4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 9FCA418C0A4; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:42:29 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Message-Id: <20121023184229.9FCA418C0A4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:42:29 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:42:35 -0000

    > From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>

    >> The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a
    >> vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF
    >> rules.

    > I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be
    > followed.

Because it's a fairly lengthy, complex, and effort-consuming, process to use
in this kind of case - rather like using a pile-driver to crack a nut?

I hear you, and understand the concern about ignoring established procedures,
but at the same time, calling for a hum from the IETF community is sufficient
to get the _entire procedure_ changed, a far more consequential act, so
asking for a hum to temporarily bypass them seems to me to be acting in the
general spirit.

And of course we do need to update our procedures so that if this ever
happens again, we don't face the choice of rolling out the pile-driver, or
proceeding in an ad hoc way, but that's a separate point.

	Noel