> Ok. So is the point then just not to have to issue a new RFC if the > Trust decides they want a different license? I.e. is that the > "future-proofing" that the proposed change is supposed to provide?
I apologize if my unfortunate use of the term "future-proofing" has caused angst. But I was referring to the proposal made by Harald Alvestrand, as a member of the community, not a proposal made by the Trust. Harald's proposal should not be taken as an indication of the Trust's intentions. I believe that Russ and I were merely saying that Harald's proposal seemed reasonable. If other members of the community disagree, then that's fine too. > > If so, in light of the other comments people are making about how the > Trust appears to be rather more activist than some people find > congenial (I am reserving my opinion on that topic), I'm not sure the > proposed change is a good one. If the Trust needed to change the > license, there would be two reasons to do it, I think: > > 1. The community wants the change. > > 2. External forces (say, legal precedents) cause the > currently-selected license to be the wrong one. > > But both of those cases seem to me to be the sort of thing that > requires some community input and some rough consensus, no? If so, > then what would be hard about writing a new RFC that captured this > update, and publishing it the way of the usual RFC process? > > A > > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > a...@shinkuro.com > Shinkuro, Inc. > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
