John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > --On Thapparently-strongly-held ursday, October 25, 2012 09:23 > -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... >> 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. > > 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. I don't agree this is a "fundamental" procedural change. Barry would like to start a four-week last call on a procedure change to which I haven't heard any objection -- just a lot of discussion on whether it's needed and whether it might apply to the current situation. IMHO it's needed, precisely because of the current disagreement on this list. Also IMHO, it doesn't apply to the current situation. This will either have resolved itself in five weeks or it won't. If 20 folks petition for recall, recall procedure will be followed. If this issue dies down with folks consenting to the NomCom filling the vacancy, it will be filled. If, OTOH, in five weeks it hasn't died down, we could _start_ another four-week LastCall on whether there is a vacancy, based on five more weeks of inactivity than we already have. If, during the next four weeks, further suggestions are made to the process to be used going forward, they can be incorporated before it's adopted. For myself, I'm willing to let this fester longer if it is indeed the consensus of the IETF to let it fester. But I find Barry's proposal entirely reasonable. (And I have to stop here, to be set up for scribing today's IESG telechat.) -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>