--On Friday, March 27, 2020 16:55 -0500 Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. As an aside, which we definitely should not take on now but I hope doesn't get lost: At the time 2026 and IIR even 3933 were written, there was a reasonable expectation that the lag time between IETF approval for publication of what we now call an IETF-stream RFC and RFC publication would be rather short. In the subsequent decade and a half, we've seen a number of periods in which that time has stretched out. It is probably time to update those two documents (and perhaps at least some others that are tied to RFC publication) so that clocks start running with the date of an IESG Protocol Action or Document Action that signs off on the document (probably plus the window for appeal of those actions and some rules about appeals in progress) rather than the RFC publication announcement date. Because of the appeal problem, it would obviously require a more complicated rule than "RFC publication", but I think multiple events are suggesting that RFC publication may have become the wrong benchmark wrt timing conditions on other events. >... >> 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". +1 to cringe. If nothing else, and noting the concern expressed by Keith, Scott, Joel, and others, you could modify this document to make the variance effective on the date of IESG approval (whether that is generalized or not) and then let an RFC be published to keep the record clear without affecting either the start time or the end time of the variance. Until and unless the IETF and the broader community reach consensus that an archival RFC series that provides a clear historical trace, even of temporary process change decisions, is a 20th Century concept that we should now move beyond, we should, IMO, be very careful about "posting in a web page is good enough" decisions. As far as web pages being archival, presumably just because we expect institutions to be permanent and/or there are lots of copies around... well that is another discussion entirely, but, as I admire boxes of punch cards and other collections of historical data that are in perfectly good physical condition, "cringe" to that too (and, yes, I know the issues with the physical media are different, but, again, another discussion). (I have other reasons for cringing too, but won't repeat them here.) best, john
