Subject: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Startup Phase

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:32:59 +0100

Not sure if this refers to what I said in an earlier not about 
indicating when the process goes into effect.

Harald indicated that process BCP approval is indicated by an 
indication in the ISOC BoT minutes that the BCP was acceptable.

I have a slight problem with minutes as the criteria.  In boards I have 
served on, minutes are not formal records until they are approved at a 
later meeting.  This leaves any minuted decision in limbo for another 
meeting interval.  For most decisions this is not a big deal.  In this 
case, I think it is somewhat more significant.

Additionally, while the ISOC BoT approves process BCPs, normally they 
do not place any conditions on ISOC actions.  In this case, the IASA 
BCP does require specific actions  from the ISOC BoT.

In this case, I think a ISOC BOT approved document, or official 
resolution, that calls out this BCP and indicates in clear language its 
agreement with the terms and conditions of the BCP would be helpful.

I would suggest a section at the front that says something like:.

--
#. Effective date for commencement of IASA

The procedures in this document will become operational immediately 
after this document has been approved by the process defined in BCP 9 
and has been affirmed by a Resolution of agreement by the ISOC board of 
Trustees.
--

(alternatively 'immediately after' can be replaced by 'the first day of 
the following month' or whatever legal/accounting starting point makes 
sense.)

As I said in a previous email, I trust the ISOC to do the right thing, 
but I prefer to put our trust in the hands of someone who explicitly 
accepts the terms under which we grant that trust.

a.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:00:40 -0500 (EST)

> This leaves any minuted decision in limbo for another
> meeting interval. 

I do not understand - in all boards I've been a part of the
decision is the decision, the minutes just report the decision - it
does not matter when the minutes get approved, the decision was 
made when teh decision was made (e.g. when teh board voted)

Scott

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 23:17:39 +0100

> made when teh decision was made (e.g. when teh board voted)

Yes, and no.  It is true that the decision is the decision.  But in the 
Boards I have been involved in, until the minutes are approved at the 
next meeting, they are not official and thus anything can be disputed 
and one can (and perhaps not in the ISOC's history but within my 
experience) argue that a decision the previous meeting was not made 
properly or not recorded properly.

It is a small thing, but on something this important, I would like to 
see a formal statement of acceptance and not rely on minutes.  I do not 
understand why asking for a response document committing the ISOC BOT 
to the BCP is a problem?

BTW, are the ISOC minutes all public?  And how long do they take to 
show up.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:21:04 -0500 (EST)

> understand why asking for a response document committing the ISOC BOT 

I quite specifically did not comment on that suggestion and
see nothing wrong with such a thing

Scott

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:26:52 -0500 (EST)

> BTW, are the ISOC minutes all public? 

yes - see 
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/documents.shtml

as is the normal case, some issues (like personnel issues) that come up in
BoT meetings are not made public but that is rare

> And how long do they take to show up

it varies, not as fast as I'd (as Secretary) would like but its 
getting better

Scott

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:06:42 +0100

--On torsdag, desember 02, 2004 15:32:59 +0100 [email-masked] wrote:

> Harald indicated that process BCP approval is indicated by an indication
> in the ISOC BoT minutes that the BCP was acceptable.
>
> I have a slight problem with minutes as the criteria.

Sorry if I confused.....

the only important point in what I was suggesting is that we should regard 
a board resolution as the "enabling" point, not adding another document to 
be negotiated between the parties.

Email announcements, minutes, or proclamations nailed to the church door 
are all mechanisms that achieve the result of "telling everyone what has 
been decided" - I don't think that's a big problem.

PS: In the case of the nomcom document, the resolution also included the 
idea that ISOC would accept the duties assigned to it under that document. 
So we've done that before too.

                     Harald