Re: WG Last Call

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

> 
>            The confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not
>            automatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position
>            currently occupied by the candidate.  The mid-term vacancy
>            can not exist until, first, the candidate formally resigns
>            from the current position
> 
>     This text does not say that the individual MUST resign their "old"
>     position.  The assumption is clearly in this and other sections but
>     the doc does not clearly make the resignation a requirement.
> 
> You are correct and that is intentional.  There has been no consensus
> suggesting that a person can not serve in two roles at the same time.
> Many believe the NOMCOM would never nominate someone for two roles, but
> "many" has not been determined to be consensus.  That is why the
> "restriction" is only an "oral tradition" and the rest of the document
> is vague and ambiguous.

maybe it would be better to say just that rather than just imply it by
only having the oral tradition (being direct is not a fault :-) )

>     sec 5
>        11.  Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the
>             IETF community for any open position, whose eligibility to serve
>             will be confirmed by the nominating committee.
> 
>     why is the nominee limited to "the IETF community" (and what does that mean
>     anyway?
> 
> The nominees are limited to the IETF community so that its leaders are
> selected from within itself.
> 
> The term "IETF community" is intentionally undefined.

I'm not sure of the value of the use of the term if its intentionally
undefined - at one extreme the "IETF community" is anyone who knows
enough to make a nomination (in which case the use of the term does
not help) and the other is that the IETF community" is limited in 
some other way, but that other way is not defined the use of the term does
not help


>     sec 5 - 15
>             Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination must be
>             notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates.  Rejected
>             candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed
>             candidates.
> 
>     does the second part of this mean 'candidates rejected by the confirming
>     body'?  if so - can it say that?
> 
> I believe that with a strict interpretation of the rules as documented
> what you say would be correct.  However, a looser interpretation would
> permit the NOMCOM to reject a candidate, also.

> I am not opposed to making this change but I would prefer to hear if
> others also believe it is necessary or good.

the reason it cought my eye is that it seems to be saying the same thing
twice (redundancy is not your friend :-) ) - maybe it could be redone
to say "Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination and 
rejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed
candidates."  

(but its not all that clear to me the difference between a consenting 
nominee and a candidate)

Scott