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

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

At 7:00 AM -0400 10/09/2003, Thomas Narten wrote:
>
>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.

That's the great tension of our role in general, though, isn't it?  You
could use those exact words to describe any document that came
out of any working group ("the community has spoken on what it
wants").

>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.
>

I was a no-ob with a comment on possibly better wording, and that's
where I remain on the document.  But I do think we're in real trouble
if we change the IESG handling of a document in order to achieve
a specific end, especially one that affects the make up of the NomCom.
The doc did not get to RFC before this NomCom cycle, and didn't even
get past the _normal_ IESG review before this NomCom cycle.  Pushing
it through to get the new rules in place *now that the point is to
change the makeup of who can serve* (which Mike's proposal is
clearly intended to do) and especially to remove some folks from
eligibility seems very, very unwise.

To put it bluntly, if Harald is still looking for a no, "no".

				Ted