> On Apr 2, 2020, at 2:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I agree that this should be as limited as possible to deal with the current issue (with changes discussed by Adrian/Barry). Bob > > 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
