On 03-Apr-20 09:13, Adam Roach wrote:
> 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
Agreed. Make this document strictly limited to this year's problem.
Long term amendments can be done on a more relaxed timescale.
I support this draft plus the clarifying changes suggested by Adrian/Barry.
Brian
> 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
