Re: Question 1 about deadlock issue

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 11:08 America/Montreal, James M Galvin 
wrote:
> And here is what I propose:
>
>        4.  The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a
>            mechanism of their own choosing, which must ensure that at
>            least one-half of the sitting members agree with the
> 	        confirmation.
>
>            At least one-half of the sitting members of the confirming
>            bodies must agree to confirm each individual candidate.  The
>            agreement must be decided within a reasonable timeframe.
>            Candidates that are not confirmed under this rule must be
>            rejected and reported as such to the nominating committee.
>
> 	        The agreement may be decided by conducting a formal vote, by
>            asserting consensus based on informal exchanges (email), or
>            by whatever mechanism is used to conduct the normal business
>            of the confirming body.

I'm happy to accept this as a friendly amendment to (A).
Are other folks who liked (A) comfortable with the above revision ?

I would suggest the further amendment for clarity to change:

>            Candidates that are not confirmed under this rule must be
>            rejected and reported as such to the nominating committee.

to instead read:

			Candidates that are not confirmed under this rule must
			be rejected.  The resulting confirmation or rejection
			of each candidate must be reported to the IETF Nominating
			Committee.

Is that amendment OK with folks ?


Thanks very much,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com