Harald,
This seems to me exactly right as long as the community has an
effective way to push back if the variance flexibility is
abused. That topic has, I think, been covered adequately in
other threads, but the two are related.
john
--On Friday, December 03, 2004 4:56 PM +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
--On 3. desember 2004 11:24 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
The variance clause that I suggested has been inserted in
section 5 on funding. I think it should apply more generally,
and should be placed as the second paragraph of section 3,
slightly modified (s/the/any/)
Disclaimer: The IAOC is authorized to vary any procedures
for legal, accounting or practical reasons as long as it
reports the variance to the IETF community and triggers
an update of this BCP.
Hmmm. Getting a BCP through the process (for any reason) is a
heavy operation, and updating a BCP of this importance is even
heavier.
That seems like overkill for what might be an one-off
situation.
What about this?
If the IAOC is unable to comply with the procedures
described here
for legal, accounting or practical reasons, the IAOC shall
report that
fact to the community, along with the variant procedure it
intends to
follow. If the problem is a long-term one, the IAOC shall
ask the IETF
to update this document to reflect the changed procedure.
That should allow "startup" variances like "it's December, we
won't get you the 2005 budget in June 2004" to be handled
without needing to revise the document for it.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf