Re: CB-nomcom communications Re: Current version?

[Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>]

Since no one has spoken up since this last message,
I believe we have rough consensus on Brian's language
as amended.

I suggest the amended language be put in the draft.

a.

On Thursday, Jun 5, 2003, at 23:55 Asia/Seoul, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Good idea. "Slate" is a US-only word in this context anyway;
> we don't write up candidates' names on a slate in Britain, for example.
>
>    Brian
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
> > A personal opinion:
> >
> > I too can live with this language with one minor
> > exception.  My issue is with the word slate in line 4.
> > Since we had several issues with ways to treat slates,
> > I would prefer to see us avoid the baggage of that
> > conflict by substituting
> > 'list of candidates' for 'slate'.
> >
> > a.
> >
> > > > >   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.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>