--On Monday, February 29, 2016 07:48 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Well, OK.
NEW NEW:
If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the
number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the
timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding
modifications to the frequency and the timing of the
processes embodied in this document. Such changes will
be announced via an IAB statement. The IAB must then
propose a corresponding update to this document within
one year.
Much improved. FWIW, I'd prefer "should" in the last sentence
to "must". While I think they are unlikely, one can imagine
circumstances that would prevent them from doing so as well as
debates over what "propose" means. If they fail to do so, the
community presumably has ways to hold the IAB accountable that
avoid the constitutional crisis around this particular issue
implied by "must". I also think "one year" is too long as a
target. Perhaps "The IAB must then initiate work on a
corresponding update to this document with the expectation that
a proposal will be completed in under a year." or words to that
effect.
thanks,
john