Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
On 12/12/04 at 9:06 PM +0100, Bert (Bert) Wijnen wrote:
This debate between John and Pete seems to be at such an abstract
meta level to me, that I have difficulty to try and see what it
means for the IAS BCP doc that I thinkwe are trying to get consensus
on.
As I said, it could be just me, but I seem unable to map it to any
issue(s) with the curremt text in rev 02 of the doc.
Ignoring John's caricature of my position: I think I am suggesting an
addition to the current BCP which more or less says:
"This BCP will take effect upon adoption of the BCP by the IESG and
the concurrent <<insert thing that ISOC does which codifies in some
interesting way the adoption of the relationship by ISOC>>"
I also suggested to insert for the part in <<>>:
"adoption of an ISOC by-law signifying the adoption of the principles
laid out in this BCP."
That's it.
I think that language like this is a pretty important part of the
equation. We've had a lot of discussion about how ISOC agrees
to something with an organization that doesn't formally exist,
and this seems to be exactly the right kind of answer...
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf