Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

> > > > > "Michael" == Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> writes:
    Michael> At 08:53 AM 10/25/2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
    >> We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us)
    >> can change any/all policy/procedures, right?

    Michael> Actually, that's my point here.

    Michael> Once upon a time, we did everything by group hum.  Then we
    Michael> became a standards body with formal procedures and gave up
    Michael> the power to change any/all policy/procedures by just
    Michael> wishing they were changed.

I started to say yes to the above statement but then ran across so many
problems that I'm going to say...
No, it's quite obvious to me the IETf in plenary mode doesn't have this
power.
Foundational procedures are created by approving a BCP.
The IETf in plenary mode can reach consensus to do that but:

1) publication of an RFC on the IETF stream requires the consensus of
the IESG. Presumably if there's a strong consensus in the IETF and a
lack of consensus on the IESG, we're set up for a constitutional crisis
or a run of the recall procedure real quick.

2) IETF process documents require approval by the ISOC BOT.

3) There is a variance procedure. I've always been puzzled by it because
it seems to require exactly the same things as approving a new procedure
plus extra work.

4) I do not believe that the IETF in plenary has the ability  to choose
to ignore its procedures or to take an action that rightfully ought to
require a BCP without such a BCP.

5) We as individuals can always form IETF' and start going there instead
of IETF if we don't like the IETF. There's a bit of a high bar in
convincing ISOC,  sponsors, the ITU and others that they too want to
attend IETF' meetings and get rid of this IETF thing.