John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Thapparently-strongly-held ursday, October 25, 2012 09:23
-0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
...
If we do that, unless something odd happens we will have this
process update formally approved BY OUR PROCESS in five weeks.
Let's please not delay.
I really, strongly, object to this way of proceeding. Making
fundamental procedural changes in haste and in the middle of a
perceived crisis is never a good idea for any organization.
I don't agree this is a "fundamental" procedural change. Barry
would like to start a four-week last call on a procedure change
to which I haven't heard any objection -- just a lot of discussion
on whether it's needed and whether it might apply to the current
situation.
IMHO it's needed, precisely because of the current disagreement
on this list.
Also IMHO, it doesn't apply to the current situation. This will
either have resolved itself in five weeks or it won't. If 20 folks
petition for recall, recall procedure will be followed. If this
issue dies down with folks consenting to the NomCom filling the
vacancy, it will be filled.
If, OTOH, in five weeks it hasn't died down, we could _start_
another four-week LastCall on whether there is a vacancy, based
on five more weeks of inactivity than we already have.
If, during the next four weeks, further suggestions are made to
the process to be used going forward, they can be incorporated
before it's adopted.
For myself, I'm willing to let this fester longer if it is indeed
the consensus of the IETF to let it fester. But I find Barry's
proposal entirely reasonable. (And I have to stop here, to be set up
for scribing today's IESG telechat.)
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>