Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-11

[Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ok.  I'll push an update based on these changes in the next few days, barring additional comments.

On 30.01.18 17:02, Dan Romascanu wrote:

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature