--On Thapparently-strongly-held ursday, October 25, 2012 09:23 -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Bob, Russ... repeating here what I said in the other thread, 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, and > > - 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. > > Let's please not delay. Barry, I really, strongly, object to this way of proceeding. Making fundamental procedural changes in haste and in the middle of a perceived crisis is never a good idea for any organization. My experience leads me to believe that IETF is even less good at it than average, but, even if your experience differs, it still isn't a good idea. Doing it right now is particularly bad because, despite the many postings on the list, a significant fraction of the community is (and should be) focused on preparation for the technical work of the IETF meeting or on clearing up other work so that they can attend, not on discussion of a procedural change that appeared in a late-posted draft. A four-week Last Call offers some protection against that but maybe not enough (I note that the IESG has often required longer-than-minimum Last Call periods when the Last Call spans IETF meetings and/or major holidays). In addition, making a procedural change to deal, effectively retroactively, with a problem that is already in progress simply has a bad, ex post facto, odor about it, an odor I believe we should not ignore. Let's deal with the matter at hand and the associated perceived emergency and then, after the dust has settled, go back and review procedures. If you want a more pragmatic argument than the "bad idea to rush through a procedure change" one above, consider that your desired fast schedule could be entirely derailed by _one_ member of the community waiting until the IESG votes and then lodging an appeal whose substance is that, if the IESG can change procedures in this way to change the rules as applied to a particular situation, especially one related to a personnel matter, that predated the change, it makes fairness impossible. While I disagree with most of them, I've seen enough comments on the list to the effect that, if recall is the only option we have, we need to use it -- comments based on principles that are apparently strongly-held by those making them-- to believe that such an appeal is not entirely unplausible**. (And my apologies if I'm giving anyone ideas they didn't have already.) So let's solve the present problem using good sense and the tools at hand. >From my personal point of view, either of the following would be rational, consistent with good sense, and just about as fast as your proposal: (i) If the IAOC is unanimously (obviously less Marshall) convinced that everything plausibly possible has been done to try to get a response from Marshall and that that there is no reasonable possibility that he is unaware of the situation, then a conclusion that he has resigned by his silence would seem to be in order. Personally, I'd like to see that in a resolution in which the steps taken are reviewed, the unanimity is recorded, and the resignation is noted. I'd prefer to see that resignation noted as "presumably for personal reasons" as well, rather than "deeming the position vacant" because I would prefer that we not hint at anger at Marshall in the record. But, if those distinctions are too subtle for the IAOC. so be it. (ii) The IESG could use its implied authority to interpret RFC 2026 (an authority it has at least implicitly applied many times in the past). It could interpret the 2026 variance procedure as applying to all bodies to which 2026 applies, whether they were created earlier enough to be enumerated in 2026 or not. (FWIW, I personally believe that interpretation would be correct relative to the intentions 16 years ago.) That procedure could then be used to treat the current situation as a resignation without creating any unfortunate precedents. While either of those approaches could be appealed as well, it would be far harder to create a plausible claim of unfairness in/to the community. Indeed, it might be that only Marshall or someone plausibly acting on his behalf, could reasonably appeal and, if that were to occur, the real problem of non-response would presumably disappear. I think other approaches are plausible too. I hope we can avoid the recall procedure, not because it would take a long time but because it involves a level of condemnation of Marshall that I believe that, in the light of past contributions, we should bypass if possible. Given the number of years we have gone without ever exercising the recall procedure, I'd rather reserve "first person ever recalled" for someone who has misbehaved in some rather nasty way and I'm not convinced that Marshall qualifies. But even it would be better than trying to make a significant and permanent procedural change on a "let's see if we can do it before the end of November and then retroactively apply it to this problem" basis. best, john ** I've used "plausible", "rational", and their synonyms several times in this note to stress the principle that the IETF should continue to favor good sense and consensus over rigid rules and their more rigid consideration. If we cannot continue to do that, I believe we are lost because our procedures are not nearly good enough (or updated carefully enough every time something changes) to sustain a rigid adherence to the letter of the rules and nothing else.