Re: WG Last Call

[James M Galvin <galvin@eListX.com>]

Speaking as editor:


On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:

    >            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.

    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 :-) )

Sure, makes sense.  If no one objects I consider it an editorial change
so I'll do that.


    > 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

I went back and looked to confirm that the term "IETF community" has
been used since the first NOMCOM RFC, rfc2027.  There have been 1 or 2
additional uses of the term in each RFC and even in this draft.

Based on that I believe that finding another term or even defining this
term (we know where that discussion is going to take us :) is a new
issue.  Since we are now in last call on this document unless you
consider the issue a show-stopper I would suggest saving this issue for
the next iteration of the document.



    >     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.

    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."

The redundancy I can fix and will do so.



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

Only the NOMCOM knows, and that is the point.

Jim