NEW TOPIC: clarifying normative nomcom instructions

[Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

It seems to me that we have a problem in some of our discussions.

We have a tradition in the IETF where we mostly want to make as few rules 
as possible, relying on the common sense of the people involved to do the 
Right Thing.
On the other hand, we have long discussions about what the Right Thing is, 
and feel (justifiably) that the outcome of those discussions should be 
preserved somewhere.

This has most recently come up in term limits ("change is good, but most of 
the time it will happen anyway") and in dual seats on IAB and IESG ("anyone 
crazy enough to want that shouldn't be on anyway, but who knows what 
emergencies could occur")

Two typical solutions to this quandary are:

- Split the documentation into a rules document ("MUST be followed") and an 
advice document ("things that have been thought about")

- Use some mechanism (RFC 2119 MUST/SHOULD/MAY, ADVICE: markers in text, 
Discussion: sections) to clearly distinguish what the rules are from what 
the community thinks the nomcom should consider when deliberating.

(The current document tries to be fairly clear on that, using English.)

It seems to me that it would be easier to achieve consensus on a specific 
point to go into the document if we agreed first whether this was a Rule or 
Good Advice.

Offered for consideration....

                      Harald