Well,
Pete Resnick wrote:
That said, let me offer a few thoughts on why I specifically don't think a by-law change is what you want. The by-laws deal primarily in the mechanics of ISOCs structural implementation:
Not so of Article VI, sections 2 & 5, which seem somewhat akin (though less specific) to the kind of thing I've been talking about.
With some disbelief that I'm dissecting another organization's by-laws on the IETF discussion list, I will say: what I read in those 2 specific by-laws is the provision of tools to ISOC for getting its work done. I understand you to be reading them as requirements.
While your proposed text:
I know you would look to a lawyer to provide the specific wording, but I'm trying to grapple with what sort of a thing would be inserted here to meet your need: something that says "ISOC will support the IETF per the structure outlined in BCPXX" seems vastly out of place.
Loosely following the structure of VI.5: "The Society will maintain a supporting relationship of the IETF administrative operations as outlined in BCPXX".
would be somewhat analogous to those if they were requirements, I don't believe it flies as a "tool to ISOC for getting its job done". Which is why I don't (personally) think it is an appropriate addition. Not, however, my decision, either way!
So, why not a resolution, then?
Because:
a future ISOC BoT could adopt a resolution to change or nullify that support with little warning and less than a 4/5 majority vote.
I think that sums it up.
But, the truth of the matter is, if the ISOC BoT has gotten to the point where that seems like a reasonable course of action, we (the IETF, ISOC,the Internet at large) are in such deep doo-doo in our relationship that the action is not the bad news.
As I think I've said before, I have seen in many organizations the ability of leaderships in organizations to (occasionally in the course of their existences) be composed of a significant handful of disruptive and problematic folks. Not a majority of the leadership, but just shy of one. And I've seen those disruptive and problematic folks occasionally shout loud enough to convince just one or two of the "good" folks to join them in a squeaker of a majority to vote for utterly stupid things. Usually their ability to do that is short lived (both due to the "good" people figuring out that their ideas are stupid and their inevitably short tenure), and the organization itself survives the period of silliness. But I can't remember a time where the "bad" people have gotten a super-majority (like 4/5) to go along with them.
And, certainly, I've known groups/boards that suffered pathologically, too. But where we apparently disagree is that I believe, if we get to the point where so much of the ISOC board has such a divergent view of the universe than the IETF does, we will have much bigger issues to deal with than whether or not they can change a resolution to support this BCP. Quite frankly, if the ISOC BoT is so inclined, we maybe *want* to be moving on, and will be chafing at the slow nature of the IETF BCP process (as you observed).
Leslie.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf