Henk Uijterwaal <henk@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: > >>> 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. > > I don't see how this is possible: If the community believes that a > change should be made, the Trust has to (at least) review it and > explain why it believes that this is not a good idea. This brings > us to phase 5, community discussion, where one can discuss the > arguments for not making the change. Exactly. What step 4 does is to allow the trust to cancel the community review by declaring that it doesn't agree. > At this point several things can happen. One possibility is that the > community really wants the change but the Trust doesn't. In that > case, there is an possibility for appeal. Step 6 allows the trust to evaluate the community request and veto the request if needed. What I'm objecting to is to allow the trust to veto the TLP changes as early as step 4, before there has been community review of the proposal. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf