Re: Current version?

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

Since Avri asked, and speaking only for myself:

I'm not so worried about influence between bodies as Mike is, but I believe 
the process will function well under Brian's proposed text.

So count me as mildly supportive (55/45) of the change.

            Harald

--On torsdag, mai 22, 2003 12:27:41 -0400 Michael StJohns 
<mstjohns@mindspring.com> 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.