Re: Alternative (H)

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 11:22 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand wrote:
> --On 22. mai 2003 08:12 -0700 Christian Huitema 
> <huitema@windows.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > This text has the advantage of not conflicting with ISOC's by-laws,
> > which is good. However, the algorithm as presented does not completely
> > resolve the deadlock problem. As proposed, the phrase "failing which 
> > the
> > candidate is considered to be rejected" seem to only apply to the case
> > where the CB has no defined decision rule and resorts to majority
> > voting.
>
> I started to put that in, but then discovered that the text
> I was editing from had added this:
>
> > The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable
> > timeframe.  The results from the confirming body must be reported
> > promptly to the nominating committee.
>
> which translates pretty well to "thou shalt not deadlock".

The existing text had equivalent phrasing about the need for
a  quick decision, yet the IAB has deadlocked at least once.
(I have no data on the ISoc BoT history).

The deadlock problem is real, not ephemeral.

So I think there is evidence that Christian is fixing a real problem
that the existing vague words don't fully resolve.

I'll propose (H2) in a minute, which tries to include Christian's 
proposal
and also Jim Galvin's proposal, with minor wordsmithing.

Ran