--On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:24 -0400 John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> wrote: >... >> 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. John, I'm not going to debate this and will now go back to intermittent lurking because I've got too much other work to do right now if I'm going to get to IETF. However: -- The community has had significant experience with procedural changes having unexpected consequences or side effects that then have to be corrected or worked around. I suggest that experience implies that _any_ change to basic procedures should be treated as fundamental and considered on that basis until the community is satisfied that it actually covers the cases it is intended to cover and nothing else. -- While you may interpret "haven't heard any objection" as agreement, I suggest that, for a late-posted draft at this time of year, it could as easily be "silence from people whose priorities haven't allowed sufficient opportunity to study the proposal and comment". best, john