On 2 Apr 2020, at 13:10, John Levine wrote:
In article
<CAC4RtVBjTjOWLMTFvM50DR2piOLQ4jniXTWPunOoMfvdkOzvXw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One nit: Should it say that it updates BCP10?
I think it should not, but should be its own BCP.
I'm enough of an optimist to hope that we don't need a defined process
for future global pandemics.
I think the "broader effort to update BCP 10" Barry was referring to is
the nascent effort to deal with NomCom eligibility in general,
especially for remote participants, not a process for pandemics. :-)
That said, while I agree that this document needn't be marked as
updating RFC 8713 (it's pretty ephemeral; no need to document something
in the text of the RFC for this), I do think it's reasonable to make it
part of BCP 10. This document will be part of the NomCom process. When
the broader update to BCP 10 arrives and obsoletes this document, it
will be removed from BCP 10 and replaced by the broader update. That's
the normal way we deal with BCPs.
But all of this is a teeny tiny point. Let's get the document approved,
and the IESG can figure out the correct process buttons to push when
we're done.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
