On Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 15:51 Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2020, at 15:15, John C Klensin wrote:
> (I think some
> variation on Pete's draft is a good idea for multiple reasons,
> but this is not the time and doing it in haste would be
> unwise.)
I have no problem putting that document on ice for a while. It was an
attempt to come up with a way to avoid publishing a BCP for the
2020-2021 NomCom (or any) variance. But it already sounds like people
would want more time to ponder the limits of it or be convinced that
it's actually a good idea, so it's unlikely to get published in time for
it to make a difference.
I was somewhat surprised that this draft went beyond the immediate question of 2020/2021 Nomcom eligibility, so if we address only that question as a one-time exception, and then return to the general question, I'd be ok with that.
It's worth looking carefully for any other weirdness that may be problematic here - my favorite is that the IESG is seated at the First IETF meeting of the year, and it's not at all clear that virtual IETF 107 would meet the letter of the law if anyone decides to appeal that decision. (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-1)
I wouldn't be surprised if there are other implications that should be cleaned up, whether as another one-off BCP or using whatever Pete's draft turns out to be.
Make good choices, of course.
Best,
Spencer
I might publish an update today with the suggestions that people made so
far, just to have it there if/when we want to get back to it, but I see
no need to keep discussing it if it's not going to move through quickly..
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
