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

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

This comment convinces me:

At 9:46 PM -0400 10/08/2003, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> 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."

If we pass this document for the same reason, I think we have the same
fire on our hands.  We didn't make the deadline; let's not pretend we did.
We can finger point on why the IETF (nb: not just the IESG) didn't make
this deadline later.

				Ted


At 9:46 PM -0400 10/08/2003, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>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