Question on draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt

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

Hi,

I'll send some typos and editos direct to Jim, but I did have one
question that might be substantive.

See rule 11 in section 5:

>         Nominating committee members are not eligible to be considered
>         for filling any open position.  They become ineligible as soon
>         as the term of the nominating committee on which they serve
>         officially begins.  They remain ineligible for the duration of
>         that nominating committee's term.

Nomcom N overlaps by about 3 months with Nomcom N+1. Due to this overlap,
is a member of Nomcom N ineligible for nomination by Nomcom N+1? As I read
the timeline, there are probably a few hours or days after the Third IETF
when a member of Nomcom N would become eligible, i.e. after Nomcom N is
dissolved but before nominations close. Is this correct? Whatever the
answer, I think the document should state it.

To put it another way, is it our intention that Nomcom members are
immunized for one year or two years?

  Brian

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Shortly, draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt will be
> available on the ID sites.  I think it covers the
> remaining issues.
> 
>  >  1.  The "superior candidate" definition was moved to be with its one
>         and only use in the document.
> 
>  >  2.  The eligibility qualifications for the nominating committee was
>         changed to require attendance at 3 out of 5 of the last five
>         meetings, to require volunteers to submit identifying contact
>         information, and to request that volunteers be familiar with IETF
>         processes and procedures.
> 
>  >  3.  The method used to select volunteers is now required to produce
>         an ordered list of volunteers.
> 
>  >  4.  The process for selecting the 10 voting volunteers had several
>         clarifications and additional requirements added, including a
>         challenge process and the requirement to disallow more than two
>         volunteers with the same primary affiliation.
> 
>  >  5.  The process for recalling a sitting member of the IAB and IESG
>         now requires at least 20 eligible members of the IETF community to
>         sign a petition requesting the recall.
> 
> I have not yet requested a meeting slot for SF.
> Partially because the current draft was not ready
> until now, partly because I did not think there
> were any open issues that needed to be discussed and
> partly because the list has been very quiet of late.
> I am hoping, in fact that this version of the draft
> is ready for WG last call.
> 
> I do have a few hours left for requesting a meeting
> slot.  If anyone has an agenda item that they believe
> needs a meeting slot, please speak up immediately.
> 
> Apologies for waiting until the last minute to make
> this request.
> 
> a.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland