Barry,
If you believe that a change to process is necessary to make a ruling on
absentee-ism, then you will also (on reflection) believe that process changes
cannot be made retro-active.
So, rushing this through (I do not mean to be pejorative in my use of "rushing")
will not actually help the current situation.
Cheers,
Adrian
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: 25 October 2012 14:20
To: Noel Chiappa
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear
We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change
any/all policy/procedures, right?
...
So if people all hum to OK all that, it has _just as much legitimacy_ as
_any other policy/procedure set into place by the IETF in plenary mode_.
Alas, that's not how we do things. We have a process, and we need to follow it.
Anything else does NOT have legitimacy.
I suggest that
- the authors of draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd post an -01 version TODAY,
incorporating comments received so far.
- Russ, as Gen AD, immediately issue a formal (4 week) last call on that
version.
- The document be put on he 29 November IESG telechat for approval.
If we do that, unless something odd happens we will have this process update
formally approved BY OUR PROCESS in five weeks.
Barry