Ted,
On 2/2/2016 4:57 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Bob Hinden
<bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>> wrote:
I agree with Brian’s comments about this having to update BCP 101
and think it get too much into how the IAB currently organizes itself.
The document reads like the IAB Chair position on the IAOC will be
replaced by an committee (aka IAB Program). The person in this
role is a voting member of the IAOC and IETF Trust, and needs to
be able to exercise their judgement in real time. It’s going to
be a problem operationally if they have to consult the committee
before voting. I think this needs some more work in the document.
I'm happy to work with the other authors to adjust the language on
this, because that's not the intent. The intent is to have the
program lead be the voting member and to be able to exercise
appropriate judgement in real time. The other program members are
there to provide advice based on their commitment to keep up with the
*public* information from the IAOC (so not its internal
correspondence, but the public reports, RFPs, minutes, etc.).
If you have specific language you'd like to see in a revision, please
let us know.
To be specific:
The program members will be responsible to review all public
correspondence of the IAOC to the community. This would include
reviews of requests for proposals at that point at which they are
made public, along with the public minutes of the IAOC meetings and
any other reports which the IAOC may be produced.
To me, this sounds like the new IAB program will approve all
communication from the IAOC. If this your intent, okay it says what you
intended. If not, I think you should add some words on the objective
of the review. Perhaps something like "...IAOC to the community and
provide feedback to the IAB appointed IAOC members."
Lou