Re: Possible extra "oral tradition"fordraft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-01.txt

[Matt Holdrege <matt.holdrege@verizon.net>]

At 01:12 AM 7/16/2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I can't really give a hypothetical example without some people being able
> to work out the real case I'm thinking of. But it has certainly happened
> that the NomCom, for whatever reason, has *definitely* failed to consult
> specific people that clearly should have been consulted about a particular
> case. Not because NomCom was evil, of course; they just didn't happen to
> be omniscient. My considered opinion is that a longer and more frank dialogue
> between the NomCom and the confirming body would allow such oversights
> to be fixed up, but indeed it's hard to make "policy" about this (see
> the subject line of this thread - I specifically did not suggest more
> rules beyond stretching the timescale).

Fair enough. I'm certainly willing to accept that there have been 
human-error problems with nomcom in the past. All that tells me is that 
Chair and Liaison selection is very, very important. At least one of the 
Liaisons has the ability to talk to the confirming body. They ought to be 
able to communicate the needs of nomcom effectively without violating the 
privacy requirements of RFC 2727.