Brian, >> >> [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. > I think it should remain an RFC in the current style. I think it’s an important element for ISOC and think it is useful to be documented in an RFC. Further, the ISOC By-laws don’t change very often, from a practical point of view we don’t need to be concerned this document will need to be updated very often. The last ISOC by-laws change that this update is dealing with took several years to go from conception to adoption Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail