On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
That would be fine with me.
Regards,
Dan