Bob,
I agree with you. I didn't actually advocate the minimalist version;
I just wanted to point out that we need a BCP in any case.
So, I suggest something like this:
OLD:
If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IAB
appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB will
make reasonable modifications to the processes embodied in this
document, without requiring further modification to this document.
Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement.
NEW:
If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IETF
appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB may
make corresponding modifications to the frequency and the timing of
the processes embodied in this document, pending any modification to
this document. Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement.
Brian
On 26/02/2016 12:35, Bob Hinden wrote:
> 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
>
>
>