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

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

hardie@qualcomm.com writes:

> 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.

The counterargument is that the community has spoken on what it wants
(at least on the major changes that are not under discussion), so
approving the document just ensures that the community decisions are
enforced immediately (i.e., during this cycle). IMO, we're on a lot
firmer ground generally when we are supporting community decisions.

We also say that discusses are just that, discusses, and that there is
room to discuss and listen to the community and react
accordingly. That is precisely why we are having this discussion.

Thomas