avri@xxxxxxx writes: > I tend to think that we should go into this arrangement with an > attitude of trust. Certainly we should try to get the document as > specific and accurate as possible, and should leave open the process > for future updates to the BCP, but I do not think we need explosive > bolts or any other prearranged separation model. > > Having chosen Scenario 0, we have opted for the simplest of the > solutions. Any escape clause, other then a statement that the > agreement can be amended upon consensus of the IETF and agreement of > the ISOC BoT (the current situation for any process BCP) would reopen > much of the complexity we decided to avoid in selecting this Scenario. I'm afraid I can't agree with this argument. The essence of good contractual arrangements is that they commit you to the terms that were mutually agreed upon. This prevents conflicts in the future. It's kind of a good fences makes good neighbors kind of thing. It's true that nailing things down is a little more work initially, but in my experience it pays off in terms of keeping people's visions of the arrangements consistent in the future. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf