--On Thursday, 06 March, 2008 16:48 -0600 Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 3/6/08 at 4:24 PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > >> Hmm. If people believe that this document should be >> processed as a BCP, thereby presumably constraining >> long-term IESG behavior and adding to our procedural core, >> should it be added to the PUFI agenda for preliminary >> discussion? > > The PUFI BOF chair, who has not completed his list of > currently desired items on the grand list of things to cover > in this BOF, hereby groans at the thought of adding another. The PUFI BOF chair has the sympathy of the former POISSON chair. However, if the community is ready to take on a significant package of changes to our basic procedures, then, IMO, it ought to have an opportunity to prioritize which ones it wants to address and to discuss how it wants to discuss those and what, if anything, it wants to do about the others. To the extent to which the General Area AD has decided that PUFI is the best way to explore those issues, I think it is incumbent on PUFI that it have the whole list on its agenda, not just one document that, because of either timing or authorship, was given Last Call treatment not afforded to any of the others. john _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf