On 25/02/2016 11:37, Barry Leiba wrote:
Barry said...
While this is certainly expedient, it's quite open-ended, entirely
left up to the judgment of the sitting IAB about what "reasonable
modifications" might mean. Certainly, with a by-law change that adds
a board appointment, most anyone would consider it reasonable to just
add that appointment with the appropriate periodicity, and it's
reasonable not to have to rev this document for that.
Brian said...
Yes, but I think this needs to be circumscribed. Wouldn't it be better
to require that BCP 77 is appropriately updated within 12 months in
such a case, i.e. trust the IAB to do the right thing but also commit
to updating the rules accordingly?
Joe said...
I guess I'm ok with that. We could also trust the IAB to know the
difference between a substantive change and a minor one.
Absolutely. I don't distrust the IAB at all, but if we're going to
have a BCP at all, it needs to be done right.
Actually, I'm fine with trusting the IAB here, as it's limited to
appointments that it is given the power to make; I just want to make
absolutely sure that the community knows what it's agreeing to.
That's why I'd rather simply shift this to an IAB statement now, and
make it clear that BCP 77 as a whole is now obsolete, and that the
process that BCP 77 formerly described is now described in the IAB
statement.
[To keep this in perspective, I'm not going to hold out on this point;
it's a suggestion -- one that I think makes it fully clear what's
being changed in how we document this process.]
I feel that it has to remain a BCP, because these are IETF seats
on the BoT, and the IETF chose to delegate the job of filling
them to the IAB. So the minimal BCP would be one that says
just that: "The IETF delegates the selection process to the IAB."
Before drafting text as Joe requested, I'll wait to see if
the minimalist version attracts interest.
Brian