On 30-Mar-20 05:22, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 11:24 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 15:51 Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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. > > > I think having the variance short lived makes sense and allows us to both deal with the immediate situation and give us some time to close any process or documentation gaps. Sure, but we could do a one-time variance as a BCP inside 6 weeks if people are sensible. (A few days to draft it, 4 week last call, a few days to finalise the text, run the IESG ballot, and one-day turnaround at the RFC Editor.) We are supposed to be a can-do organisation. Brian
