--On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:24 -0400 John Leslie
<john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
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.
John,
I'm not going to debate this and will now go back to
intermittent lurking because I've got too much other work to do
right now if I'm going to get to IETF. However:
-- The community has had significant experience with procedural
changes having unexpected consequences or side effects that then
have to be corrected or worked around. I suggest that
experience implies that _any_ change to basic procedures should
be treated as fundamental and considered on that basis until the
community is satisfied that it actually covers the cases it is
intended to cover and nothing else.
-- While you may interpret "haven't heard any objection" as
agreement, I suggest that, for a late-posted draft at this time
of year, it could as easily be "silence from people whose
priorities haven't allowed sufficient opportunity to study the
proposal and comment".
best,
john