On 4/2/2020 2:27 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Looking at the above - perhaps this is better done as a combination of permanent and temporary changes to BCP 10?
This is exactly the kind of scope creep that I (and others) had been worried about when the proposal was made to document the one-time exception process as an RFC instead of using the day-pass precedent of using an IESG statement. There is discussion underway on eligibility-discuss@xxxxxxxx about more persistent changes, and your proposal would be useful input to that conversation. But given the timeframes that are absolutely critical in which we get consensus on this document, I think it is imperative that we focus on a one-time, non-precedent-setting decision that can be used by the NomCom chair to successfully run the rapidly-approaching process.
Alissa laid out some very valid concerns in her message at <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LpGQtfEgofbJ9cvkcdX19sTloHU>, and attempting to expand the scope of this document beyond the immediate decision in front of us steers us directly towards one of the worst-case outcomes that she described.
/a -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
