> On Jan 29, 2018, at 1:12 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> 8. Section 4: >> >> 'It is anticipated that >> those roles will evolve. The IASA is responsible for keeping the >> community informed in this regard, and MAY do so without updating >> this memo.' >> >> I would be a little concerned if some of the key roles would change without >> this document being updated. I understand the need to be flexible, but we need >> to put some limits. Maybe at least emphasize the need to inform the community >> by a MUST. For example: >> >> 'It is anticipated that >> those roles will evolve. The IASA MUST keep the >> community informed in this regard, and MAY do so without updating >> this memo.' > > I don't think the MUST significantly changes the meaning, so I'm ambivalent about the change. Since this text was put in to address a comment in AD Evaluation, I'm inclined to hear from Alissa. Perhaps the concern could be addressed by saying “without first updating this memo”? The point I raised is that this document shouldn’t gate the ability for the roles to change, but certainly if they do change the document should be updated (or obsoleted by a new document) to match the reality. Thanks, Alissa