On 25/02/2016 11:37, Barry Leiba wrote: > Barry said... >>>> 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. > > Brian said... >>> 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? > > Joe said... >> 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. Absolutely. I don't distrust the IAB at all, but if we're going to have a BCP at all, it needs to be done right. > > Actually, I'm fine with trusting the IAB here, as it's limited to > appointments that it is given the power to make; I just want to make > absolutely sure that the community knows what it's agreeing to. > That's why I'd rather simply shift this to an IAB statement now, and > make it clear that BCP 77 as a whole is now obsolete, and that the > process that BCP 77 formerly described is now described in the IAB > statement. > > [To keep this in perspective, I'm not going to hold out on this point; > it's a suggestion -- one that I think makes it fully clear what's > being changed in how we document this process.] I feel that it has to remain a BCP, because these are IETF seats on the BoT, and the IETF chose to delegate the job of filling them to the IAB. So the minimal BCP would be one that says just that: "The IETF delegates the selection process to the IAB." Before drafting text as Joe requested, I'll wait to see if the minimalist version attracts interest. Brian