--On Sunday, February 28, 2016 15:06 -0500 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
I'm always somewhat pained by toothless requirements. E.g.
what's the downside if the IAB fails propose an update, or if
they drag out the completion of the update for several years
because other things are more important?
So am I. However, my pain level about toothless requirements is
exceeded by my pain level about making specific requirements for
the handling of unusual or edge-case situations, requirements
that may not be able to anticipate all possible cases and that
therefore may overreact or under-react. I'd like to believe
that the community has ways to hold the IAB accountable for
failing, without good reason, to do things the community told
them to do. I'd also like to believe that the vast majority of
the IAB takes community instructions seriously enough that those
instructions will, if clear, simply be followed in the
overwhelming percentage of circumstances. If that turns out
to not be the case and accountability mechanisms prove necessary
but ineffective in practice, and the community actually cares,
the community has a much more serious problem than whether ISOC
BoT members are appointed or a specific BCP is updated.
john