On 10/23/2012 8:47 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Let me get this straight: for the sake of procedures that are clearly
designed to be hard to use,
While I think that 3777 probably errs on the side of too hard to use,
recalling someone from one of these positions _should_ be hard to do,
and should not be undertaken lightly.
and on the dubious principle that some
"precedent" is going to be set with respect to doing something that we
have never done before and hope never to do again
Thus, the definition of a precedent.
(because we're going to clarify the procedures right now),
One hopes, but there are no guarantees in life.
and in the face of an impending
decision by an already-sitting nomcom that is already doing all this
work,
That's one of the reasons that the documented procedure is more
palatable (barely).
we're going to cleave to using the heavyweight procedure instead
of allowing judgement to carry the day?
The problem with that "judgement" that you'd like to use here is that it
may be all fine and good in this case, but what about next time?
I just want to be clear about this, since I'm busy running around the
NANOG meeting attempting to encourage operators to devote more of the
time they don't have to IETF activities. I want to be sure I'm
correct in illustrating to them how we have all the bureaucratic
agility of the ITU-T or ICANN and all the legal and political
sophistication of the Occupy Wall Street committees.
With respect, you haven't spent much time with either the ITU or ICANN
if you think that 3777 is rigidly bureaucratic by their standards.
This is one of those situations where we have to take our medicine.
Doug