Re: Alternative (H2)

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

--On fredag, mai 30, 2003 12:53:15 +0700 Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> 
wrote:

> I haven't had time to read this list for ages, and am just catching up.
> I think I have read all of this thread - and I think you're all attempting
> to solve the wrong problem.
>
> That is, Ran says that the IAB has deadlocked (the IAB's nature must have
> changed a lot since I was there...) and that that poses a problem for the
> nomcom.
>
> Fine - that should be fixed.
>
> But the proposed solution is to start (even in this mild form) to tell the
> confirming body how it should make its decision?

actually the previous nomcom RFC told the confirming body how to make its 
decision, and not only did it, but did it sloppily. we're trying to back 
away from that (at least I am).

once the IAB makes a decision on how it wants to decide on confirmations, 
the second paragraph of (H2) becomes inoperative, so your text and 
alternative (H2) become more or less functionally equivalent.
(The third paragraph of (H2) is a no-op already; you can't fail to conform 
to a text that says "anything's allowed".)

that's where I want to go....

               Harald