Re: Proposal from mstjohns: Pre-approval of RFC 2727bis

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <37505209.1065657292@localhost>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
>Mike St. Johns has suggested that the IESG should approve the 2727bis 
>document as-is, mostly, I think, in order to fix the nomcom selection that 
>will occur on October 10.
>
>I think there's good reason for that, but also want to get the current 
>issues with the document fixed before publication.
>
>I have an alternate suggestion - that the ISOC President instruct the 
>nomcom chair to follow the instructions of 2727bis, accepting that some 
>points will be clarified as part of the ongoing process.
>
>If the IESG agrees on that, and the ISOC BoT and ISOC President does not 
>object, we can do it. But we have to decide by tomorrow.
>
>What do people think?
>
>NOTE: If I hear one person among the IESG + ISOC BoT Chair + ISOC President 
>saying "NO, can't do", I dont' think we can do it. I'd also like to have 
>people say "YES".
>

I was a no-ob on 2727bis, so I have no problem with the concept.  But 
some people may scream about your proposed way of doing things, since 
it is not only changing the rules in the middle of the game, it's 
changing the rules *after* there's been some play, in particular the 
skewed population that Mike has warned us about.  I think we'd be 
playing with fire if we told the nomcom "ignore the written procedure 
because some people don't like the possible outcome given the current 
volunteers."

Let's just pass 2727bis now, and revise after this nomcom cycle.  It's 
just safer that way.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb