As I understand the Arrata rules, no, we can not fix this with an
erratum. The problem is that what we want to fix is not a lack of
clarity of the text, nor that the text does not reflect the IETF
agreement, but rather a change to the IETF agreement. An erratum is not
permitted to do that.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/24/2020 12:28 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
....
I'm wondering if it might be possible to file an erratum to get this immediate problem fixed in RFC8713?
Something like:
s/The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not vote on the selection of
candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the committee
unless otherwise specified in this document./
The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not vote on the selection of
candidates. The Chair, liaisons and prior year's Chair do vote on all other issues before the committee
unless otherwise specified in this document. No other advisor votes./
Just a thought. I really dislike operating in a kludgy and inefficient way. It's obvious we need Henrik's help. This voting clause is really standing in the way of efficient operation, and potential advisors aren't saying "I refuse to advise unless I get to vote on procedural issues".
Barbara
