Re: Question 1 about deadlock issue

[James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>]

On Thu, 15 May 2003, RJ Atkinson wrote:

    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 ?

Okay with me.

Jim