Re: WG Review: Operation of the IESG/IAB Nominating and Recall Committees (nomcom)

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

    Date:        Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:06:14 +0200
    From:        Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@Alvestrand.no>
    Message-ID:  <596496777.1018940774@localhost>

  | --On 15. april 2002 15:17 -0700 Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> 
  | wrote:
  | >          Robert stated that he assumed there would be a BOF
  | >          that would take place before IESG approval and
  | >          that it would be the place for "fixing" the charter.

  | actually I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that point,

Actually, I do, kind of, because while I did say ...

  | >          Robert stated that he assumed there would be a BOF
  | >          that would take place before IESG approval and

I didn't ever say

  | >          that it would be the place for "fixing" the charter.

Dave inferred that - most likely from the context of my message.
It was perhaps a reasonable inference, but it wasn't at all what I meant
(after all, it was blindingly obvious that there isn't going to be a BOF).

My point was more directed to ...

  | fwiw....part of the point of the NOMCOM chartering exercise is to see if we 
  | can use "small sharp WGs" in getting things done in the rule-making space.

and was (perhaps an inappropriate) reference to how much easier this would
all be if the poisson group had simply continued to exist.   We wouldn't
need to be arguing about charters, whether BOFS are needed ... perhaps 30-40%
of the recent messages on this list could have been avoided, and only the
messages with substance would have been needed.

It isn't as if the people posting messages are any kind of different set
than would have been posting messages on the poised list.   That is, all
that has been achieved so far (it seems to me) is a bunch of extra work
for no net practical benefit.

kre