Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:49:44 -0500 (EST)
    From:        James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.43.0203131526270.24968-100000@three.elistx.com>


  | If you agree with these changes do nothing.  If you disagree please say
  | so within the 2 weeks that start today.

I disagree.

Most of what is here is noise, and of no importance, but I cannot
believe that anyone would seriously require ...

  | >    7.  The Chair is responsible for ensuring all information related to
  | >        the selection and confirmation of candidates is archived with the
  | >        Internet Society President upon completion of the nominating
  | >        committee's responsibilities.

The rationale explains that this is just a codification of existing
practice, if that's correct, I am appalled.

My understanding was that communications with the nomcom were supposed
to be confidential.   That should mean that they go no further than the
nomcom - not that they're to be archived for ever, for purposes that
aren't explained.

Please delete this clause, and instead insert a clause requiring that
all records of confidential input to the nomcom process be destroyed
once the nomcom has been would up (which is when the next nomcom takes over,
not when the current one announces its nominations).

By that time, how or why the nomcom reached its decision is largely
irrelevant - it is done, and complete, and the next one will be considering
a new set of problems.

And less important, but still worthy of note ...

  | >    13.  A candidate may not be confirmed to serve for both an IESG and
  | >         an IAB position concurrently.

The IETF chair is a member of both the IESG and the IAB.

and ...

  | >         If the term of the sitting role does not end coincident with the
  | >         start of the term of the new role, the confirmed candidate must
  | >         choose exactly one role.

For how long is that choice expected to last?   Do you intend to say
"must vacate one position" - in which case, say that.   Or, do you mean
"must choose one for the period until the duplication ends" (occasionally
the IAB has decided to switch at the start of the IETF week, where the
IESG always switches at the end of it, as I recall anyway).   Or do you
mean "at any particular instant, one role must be chosen, but a different
one can be chosen 5 seconds later".  What you have written isn't clear.
Nor do I think this is in the slightest bit important to anything (but
better no language than ambiguous language).

kre