Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
On 1/13/05 at 1:34 PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
As Brian Carpenter said:
I'm not saying a bylaw change would be a bad thing, in due
time. But ISOC can get a Board motion through in about 2 weeks,
whereas a bylaw change takes several months. Making it a
prerequisite would cause us to lose precious time.
And the ISOC BoT has plenty of stuff on its plate just caring for
the rest of the effects of this process, if I understand Steve
Crocker correctly.
I personally don't believe that a resolution is a sufficient mechanism
for codification of this on the ISOC side.
I made the suggestion of a
by-law change, and I'm not convinced of the "takes several months"
(though I'm willing to hear some convincing arguments as to why that
should be the case). I'm willing to hear about other codifying
mechanisms. I can't speak for others, but I suspect there are others
in the same boat with me.
I certainly am. In that vein, I'd note that the fact that it's
difficult for ISOC to make this kind of commitment is a feature,
not a bug, because it makes it difficult for them to back out
later.
I suggest that we close this ticket as "no change required" - the
issue will not be forgotten, but it should not affect this document.
I object to this entirely.
As do I. How is closing it as "no change required" operationally
different from forgetting it?
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf