Re: WG Last Call

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

In the Introduction, we have 

>    However, these procedures are subject to change and such
>    change takes effect immediately upon its approval, regardless of
>    whether this document has yet been revised.

This is no good as it stands, since it doesn't define whose approval
is needed. Is it the IESG's? Is it the ISOC Board's?

>        3.  The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and,
>            in consultation with the nominating committee, consent to
>            some, all, or none of the candidates.

Sigh. I thought we had got rid of this usage of "consultation"
which Mike St Johns convincingly argued is incorrect, and replaced
it with a neutral word such as "communication." True, there was no
outpouring of support for this change, but there was no objection either,
and Mike is correct that this process is *not* consultative.

James M Galvin wrote:
...
>     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.

Logically, the Nomcom chooses the list of candidates, so only the CB
can reject them. So I think the change is logically unnecessary, but
does no harm.

   Brian