RE: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barry,

 

If you believe that a change to process is necessary to make a ruling on absentee-ism, then you will also (on reflection) believe that process changes cannot be made retro-active.

 

So, rushing this through (I do not mean to be pejorative in my use of "rushing") will not actually help the current situation.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: 25 October 2012 14:20
To: Noel Chiappa
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

 

We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change
any/all policy/procedures, right?

... 

So if people all hum to OK all that, it has _just as much legitimacy_ as
_any other policy/procedure set into place by the IETF in plenary mode_.

 

Alas, that's not how we do things.  We have a process, and we need to follow it.  Anything else does NOT have legitimacy.

 

I suggest that

 

- the authors of  draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd post an -01 version TODAY, incorporating comments received so far.

 

- Russ, as Gen AD, immediately issue a formal (4 week) last call on that version.

 

- The document be put on he 29 November IESG telechat for approval.

 

If we do that, unless something odd happens we will have this process update formally approved BY OUR PROCESS in five weeks.

 

Barry