> 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?
> Andrew Sullivan
> Shinkuro, Inc.
Ietf mailing list