On 2/24/16, 12:06 PM, "Architecture-discuss on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <architecture-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> While this is certainly expedient, it's quite open-ended, entirely >> left up to the judgment of the sitting IAB about what "reasonable >> modifications" might mean. Certainly, with a by-law change that adds >> a board appointment, most anyone would consider it reasonable to just >> add that appointment with the appropriate periodicity, and it's >> reasonable not to have to rev this document for that. > >Yes, but I think this needs to be circumscribed. Wouldn't it be better >to require that BCP 77 is appropriately updated within 12 months in >such a case, i.e. trust the IAB to do the right thing but also commit >to updating the rules accordingly? I guess I'm ok with that. We could also trust the IAB to know the difference between a substantive change and a minor one. Anyway, please propose text. -- Joe Hildebrand