--On Monday, September 24, 2018 17:09 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I meant to reply to John Klensin's message about the -00 > draft, but failed to do so. So I think that this draft is > correct in its analysis and proposals, based on quite a few > years experience, not just on the recent appeal. > > As for the "the tradeoff between good sense and > rule-following" that John mentioned: yes. We should always be > able to adapt our rules when appropriate, since we made them. > As long as the IESG consults the community, of course. Brian, Thanks. As to your last comment, I strongly agree, but see how that is done as another matter for discretion and good sense. I expect the IESG to weigh the gravity, scope, and precedent-setting of any particular decision and match the way in which the community is asked accordingly. I think it would be a disaster if the IESG concluded (or was forced) that it needed to run a four-week Last Call on every decision. There are certainly topics on which an announcement in an "anyone with a severe problem with this should comment within a few days" note should be more than sufficient. If they get it wrong, we have and should be able to utilize appeals, the Nomcom, and the recall process. best, john
