Hi, (just thinking loud as an bystander..)
On Tuesday 11 March 2008 18:50, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This, however, I find a really interesting argument. I'm not sure it
> would actually work, but using the tech-ctte as a final arbitrator of
> Policy decisions and actually using that appeal on a regular basis is
> something that Manoj and I have both talked about, something that has
> constitutional support, and something that may very well work.
>
> This is something that we could try now without making any changes to the
> tech-ctte, if the tech-ctte is interested. If we tried it for a while,
> we'd have more data to use to determine whether rotating the membership of
> the tech-ctte would be useful.
>
> Have you raised this idea with the tech-ctte? What do the other members
> think of having review of Policy change proposals be part of the tech-ctte
> job? How would the mechanics of this work? (Manoj's Policy change
> proposal has the tech-ctte as an automatic appeal for any rejected Policy
> change, but this sounds more active than that to me.)
I like the idea and am actually surprised it sounds new to you. It seems quite
logical :-) Great that you want to try it out now! Have fun! :)
regards,
Holger
pgp5jBuj33BSn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
