Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 1/13/05 at 1:34 PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >>As Brian Carpenter said: >> >>> I'm not saying a bylaw change would be a bad thing, in due >>> time. But ISOC can get a Board motion through in about 2 weeks, >>> whereas a bylaw change takes several months. Making it a >>> prerequisite would cause us to lose precious time. >> >> And the ISOC BoT has plenty of stuff on its plate just caring for >> the rest of the effects of this process, if I understand Steve >> Crocker correctly. > > I personally don't believe that a resolution is a sufficient mechanism > for codification of this on the ISOC side. > I made the suggestion of a > by-law change, and I'm not convinced of the "takes several months" > (though I'm willing to hear some convincing arguments as to why that > should be the case). I'm willing to hear about other codifying > mechanisms. I can't speak for others, but I suspect there are others > in the same boat with me. I certainly am. In that vein, I'd note that the fact that it's difficult for ISOC to make this kind of commitment is a feature, not a bug, because it makes it difficult for them to back out later. >> I suggest that we close this ticket as "no change required" - the >> issue will not be forgotten, but it should not affect this document. > > I object to this entirely. As do I. How is closing it as "no change required" operationally different from forgetting it? -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf