Looks pretty good.
There's a fourth possible outcome: we've gathered enough information from the
experiment that we know what we want to do and don't need to re-run another
experiment in order to revise 7437.
Tony
From: ietf
<ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>> on
behalf of "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 5:21 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
Cc: Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca<mailto:mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>>,
ietf <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom
How's this look for starters?
http://blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-nomcom-procexp.txt
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
On 08/04/2016 08:52, Michael Richardson wrote:
...
> On the other hand, I realize now that previous thread went on longer
> than I remembered, and there was a proposal that we (I, probably)
> construct an RFC3933-style process experiment and let that run for a
> while. If it works well, we can codify it by adding it to RFC7437bis.
> So I'll do that. If anyone wants to volunteer to collaborate on it,
> please contact me directly.
Yes, let's do that!
It would awesome if we could say definitely that the new rules
contribute to more volunteers before we actually use them.
That's not quite how RFC3933 works. You'd *actually* run the experimental
procedure for (say) one cycle, with automatic reversion to RFC7437 unless
RFC7437bis was approved. I think it's a good idea. A one-year experiment
affects ~half the IESG and IAB seats so is highly unlikely to lead to
disaster.
Brian