Re: [security-jc] RE: Question on the meaning of JC votes...

[Phil Griffin <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>]

There's also a time factor. Assume a TC votes to accept an SJC
recommendation, and following this vote the membership changes.
Are new members 'bound' to anything? 

And is the TC, new members or not, bound forever? What if the world
were to change? A TC vote is not a contract after all.

I guess I tend to view the SJC votes more like the MoU MG votes.
They are intended to promote coordination and cooperation, but
they are not really binding on the groups being coordinated. The
MoU MG votes have moral authority only. 

And the MoU MGs ability to foster cooperation is its strong suit.
That power is not as small a deal as it might seem. It also carries 
with it the power to collectively not cooperate with the uncooperative.

I believe the same will hold true for the SJC votes. Adherence to 
the dictates of the SJC will depend on the quality of SJC leadership
and on the perceptions of those the SJC seeks to coordinate.

Phil



> Hal Lockhart wrote:
> 
> 
> > Rather than calling the votes procedural or coordination, we could
> > consider them as 1) those that apply only to the JC and 2) those
> that
> > are recommendations to the member TCs.
> 
> I agree that this is a better principle on which to base the
> distinction. Whether it will be easy to draw this distinction in
> practice, remains to be seen.
> 
> > Those votes that are recommendations to the TCs should request their
> 
> > input, and perhaps also their assent to be bound by the decision.
> > Obviously this assent would take at least two weeks, or
> > perhaps a month
> > or so for the TC to consider the issue and agree to abide by the
> > recommendation. And this type of JC recommendation may not have much
> 
> > weight unless it is unanimously accepted by all of the member TCs.
> 
> I completely agree with this.
> 
> Hal