On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:03 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> (ii) The IESG could use its implied authority to interpret RFC
> 2026 (an authority it has at least implicitly applied many times
> in the past). It could interpret the 2026 variance procedure as
> applying to all bodies to which 2026 applies
Hi John,
At 08:03 25-10-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
(ii) The IESG could use its implied authority to interpret RFC
2026 (an authority it has at least implicitly applied many times
in the past). It could interpret the 2026 variance procedure as
applying to all bodies to which 2026 applies, whethe
--On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:24 -0400 John Leslie
wrote:
>...
>> I really, strongly, object to this way of proceeding. Making
>> fundamental procedural changes in haste and in the middle of a
>> perceived crisis is never a good idea for any organization.
>
>I don't agree this is a "f
John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Thapparently-strongly-held ursday, October 25, 2012 09:23
> -0400 Barry Leiba wrote:
>...
>> If we do that, unless something odd happens we will have this
>> process update formally approved BY OUR PROCESS in five weeks.
>>
>> Let's please not delay.
>
> I really,
--On Thapparently-strongly-held ursday, October 25, 2012 09:23
-0400 Barry Leiba wrote:
> Bob, Russ... repeating here what I said in the other thread, I
> suggest that...
>
> - the authors of draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd post an -01
> version TODAY, incorporating comments received so far,
>
>
