--On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 19:13 -0500 "Scott O. Bradner"
<sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> thanks - the suggested language is helpful
Thanks. Glad it helped.
Suggestion to the IAOC: I think it would be extremely helpful if
you went through the rest of this document and all of your other
significant procedural documents and cleaned up language that
appears necessary only if your goal is to impress amateur
lawyers (or perhaps real ones of some decades ago) with your
ability to sound formal.
>From my point of view, BCP 101 creates as strong an obligation
on you to act transparently and explain clearly to the community
what you are doing as it does to take the required actions.
Language that obfuscates rather than clarifying does not meet
that requirement. For the record, despite Scott's accepting
responsibility, I don't think he is the problem: in the more
than 40 years we've known, and often worked with, each other,
I've never observed his writing that way on his own. Even if he
did, this document was presented to the community as "from the
IAOC", not "from Scott" and that means all of you had an
obligation to review sufficiently, or make sure the reviews are
dong sufficiently, to share responsibility (I note that is the
same obligation we assume of WGs submitting documents for
community review and the IESG and IAB when they do so).
If reviewing and upgrading these sorts of documents (and meeting
a number of other commitments to the community, such as posting
contracts (redacted if needed)) is impossible then, especially
for those who were appointed specifically to serve on the IAOC
and as Trustees, I think the community should hear about your
priorities or, if you are all working long hours on the IAOC but
unable to do everything BCP 101 and the community are calling
for, that you tell us and, ideally, propose a reorganization
that would allow the work to get done better.
best,
john