--On Monday, February 29, 2016 07:48 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, OK.
>
> NEW 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. Such changes will
> be announced via an IAB statement. The IAB must then
> propose a corresponding update to this document within
> one year.
Much improved. FWIW, I'd prefer "should" in the last sentence
to "must". While I think they are unlikely, one can imagine
circumstances that would prevent them from doing so as well as
debates over what "propose" means. If they fail to do so, the
community presumably has ways to hold the IAB accountable that
avoid the constitutional crisis around this particular issue
implied by "must". I also think "one year" is too long as a
target. Perhaps "The IAB must then initiate work on a
corresponding update to this document with the expectation that
a proposal will be completed in under a year." or words to that
effect.
thanks,
john