Re: Current version?

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

I love the passive voice - it hides a host of ills...

Who determined?  As near as I remember, Brian and I had the discussion, 
came to a consensus, and there were no opposing opinions.

Mike



At 14:40 5/22/2003, James M Galvin wrote:
> Speaking as editor, it was determined there was no consensus to change
> this text.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 May 2003, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
>     Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:27:41 -0400
>     From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>
>     To: James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
>     Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
>     Subject: Current version?
>
>     Jim -
>
>     The May 8th version of this didn't address the comments and 
> discussion about
>
>
>     >The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and,
>     >            in consultation with the nominating committee, consent to
>     >            some, all, or none of the candidates.
>
>
>     The CBs have their own roles and MUST NOT be overly influenced by the
>     Nomcom.  So "in consultation with" needs to go.
>
>     Brian proposed some alternate text which I can live with:
>
>     >   If not all the candidates submitted to a confirming body are
>     >   rapidly confirmed, the confirming body continues to communicate
>     >   with the nominating committee both to understand the committee's
>     >   rationale for the slate and, if appropriate, to explain the reason
>     >   why all the candidates were not confirmed.
>     >
>     >   The confirming body may ask the nominating committee for additional
>     >   information about a nominee, or about the nominating committee's 
> procedure,
>     >   to assist them in their deliberations. However, the confirming body
>     >   and the nominating committee must refrain from mutual communication
>     >   about availability, qualification or characteristics of other 
> possible
>     >   candidates for the position.