Re: Current version?

[Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>]

As far as I can tell the discussion of this did fall through the
cracks.  There was this suggestion of some language and then the
public discussion stopped.

Perhaps this counts as a consensus of 2, now 3, because of silence
of the majority.
At this point, given the importance of this specification, as
opposed to just accepting that, I would like people on this list
to look at this proposed change and to voice their opinions on it.

Should silence persist, then I will have to declare
the language as consensus language.

As I said previously, I will be away from the network for
another few days.

a.


Michael StJohns wrote:
> 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.