On 27 Mar 2020, at 16:43, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3933> would be almost perfect for this except that it takes too long for an existential emergency (which I believe seating a Nomcom that the community [agreed] should be seated would qualify). Perhaps it's worth explaining why that BCP isn't appropriate in this case.
Good point. 3933 also requires the publication of an RFC, in its case Experimental. For a one-time or short-lived variance, an RFC seems too heavyweight. I'll definitely add a reference and explain in -01.
Other than that, I'd only suggest using a numbered list in Section 2 so people can follow the steps more clearly.
I'll give it a go. It will take quite a bit of re-arranging of text. I was being lazy and copy/pasting from 2026. I'll see what I can do. Maybe wait for -02.
And thanks for taking this on.
So far, it's been pretty easy. I'll reserve judgement before saying "you're welcome".
Spencer, who would be fine if the community just said "Do The Right Thing. no process change required", but who would feel better if we knew the community had said that ...
I've already seen a couple of comments that amounted to (at least) cringes to that suggestion, given that every proposal I've seen for NomCom 2020-2021 is going to be a rule change of some sort to 8713, so I'm not too sanguine about "no process change required".
pr -- Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/ All connections to the world are tenuous at best
