Just so I'm clear (was: IAOC Request for community feedback)

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:47:48PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> 
> On 10/23/2012 2:32 PM, John Leslie wrote:

> > In other organizations, I have lived through longish periods of
> > uncertainty about the exact status of an individual, and I no longer
> > find it scary.
> 
> I tend to agree, which is one of the reasons I think the procedure
> should be followed as written.

Let me get this straight: for the sake of procedures that are clearly
designed to be hard to use, and on the dubious principle that some
"precedent" is going to be set with respect to doing something that we
have never done before and hope never to do again (because we're going
to clarify the procedures right now), and in the face of an impending
decision by an already-sitting nomcom that is already doing all this
work, we're going to cleave to using the heavyweight procedure instead
of allowing judgement to carry the day?

I just want to be clear about this, since I'm busy running around the
NANOG meeting attempting to encourage operators to devote more of the
time they don't have to IETF activities.  I want to be sure I'm
correct in illustrating to them how we have all the bureaucratic
agility of the ITU-T or ICANN and all the legal and political
sophistication of the Occupy Wall Street committees.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]