Well,
Pete Resnick wrote:
That said, let me offer a few thoughts on why I specifically don't
think a by-law change is what you want. The by-laws deal primarily in
the mechanics of ISOCs structural implementation:
Not so of Article VI, sections 2 & 5, which seem somewhat akin (though
less specific) to the kind of thing I've been talking about.
With some disbelief that I'm dissecting another organization's
by-laws on the IETF discussion list, I will say: what I read in
those 2 specific by-laws is the provision of tools to ISOC
for getting its work done. I understand you to be reading them
as requirements.
While your proposed text:
I know you would look to a lawyer to provide the specific wording, but
I'm trying to grapple with what sort of a thing would be inserted here
to meet your need: something that says "ISOC will support the IETF
per the structure outlined in BCPXX" seems vastly out of place.
Loosely following the structure of VI.5: "The Society will maintain a
supporting relationship of the IETF administrative operations as
outlined in BCPXX".
would be somewhat analogous to those if they were requirements,
I don't believe it flies as a "tool to ISOC for getting its
job done". Which is why I don't (personally) think it is an
appropriate addition. Not, however, my decision, either way!
So, why not a resolution, then?
Because:
a future ISOC BoT could adopt a resolution to change or nullify that
support with little warning and less than a 4/5 majority vote.
I think that sums it up.
But, the truth of the matter is, if the ISOC BoT has gotten to the
point where that seems like a reasonable course of action, we (the
IETF, ISOC,the Internet at large) are in such deep doo-doo in our
relationship that the action is not the bad news.
As I think I've said before, I have seen in many organizations the
ability of leaderships in organizations to (occasionally in the course
of their existences) be composed of a significant handful of disruptive
and problematic folks. Not a majority of the leadership, but just shy of
one. And I've seen those disruptive and problematic folks occasionally
shout loud enough to convince just one or two of the "good" folks to
join them in a squeaker of a majority to vote for utterly stupid things.
Usually their ability to do that is short lived (both due to the "good"
people figuring out that their ideas are stupid and their inevitably
short tenure), and the organization itself survives the period of
silliness. But I can't remember a time where the "bad" people have
gotten a super-majority (like 4/5) to go along with them.
And, certainly, I've known groups/boards that suffered pathologically,
too. But where we apparently disagree is that I believe, if we get
to the point where so much of the ISOC board has such a divergent
view of the universe than the IETF does, we will have much bigger issues
to deal with than whether or not they can change a resolution to
support this BCP. Quite frankly, if the ISOC BoT is so inclined,
we maybe *want* to be moving on, and will be chafing at the slow
nature of the IETF BCP process (as you observed).
Leslie.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf