Olaf Kolkman <olaf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >>>> I'm strongly concerned that this puts the decision making of what >>>> is and >>>> what is not a problem into the Trust's hands. >>> >>> No, there is always step 5: review of the new text or decision not >>> to change >>> the text. If a suggestion isn't considered a good idea by the >>> Trust, the >>> reasons for not changing it can be discussed in this step. >> >> Step 4 puts a veto for changes into the Trust's hands. Members on the >> Trust can be removed by the IETF, but I don't believe that is a good >> way >> to make the Trust to do something the IETF requests. > > As a Trustee I've signed a statement that reads: > > 3. The undersigned hereby agrees to serve as a Trustee to the Trust > and to fulfill the > duties of a Trustee in accordance with the terms of the Trust > Agreement and all > other requirements of law applicable to service as a trustee of a > Virginia trust and > to comply with all requirements of the Trust Agreement applicable > to his/her > service as a Trustee > > If a proposal from the IETF is in conflict with the terms of the Trust > Agreement or the law then a Trustee has the obligation to veto it (a > fairly academic possibility, I believe). I don't see how that is related to step 4 above. There is plenty of mechanisms left for the Trust to veto changes to become effective -- for example, you can just refuse to approve the change -- however my point is about having the trust be able to cancel the process to modify the TLP even before it has been subject to community discussion. That approach appears contrary to the concept that the Trust carries out the wishes of the IETF and not the other way around. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf