Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Again, I lack context - it looks as if you've started the discussion before
people have a had a chance to join the list. So please hold on and do
a reset.

I will have a number of things to say about RFC 2727 in Minneapolis,
when the microphones open in the Thursday plenary. They cut quite
deeply into the status quo. 

   Brian

Robert Elz wrote:
> 
>     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

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland
Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>