Re: WG Last Call

[James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>]

Sorry to be so long in responding to this.  Speaking as editor:



On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

    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?

This text was present in RFC2727, the document currently being revised,
but none of the prior versions.

My recollection of the time is that the intent was to ensure a NOMCOM
could actually adopt a "waiting-for-final-approval" document as its
process if any revision "currently in progress" was completed.  However,
in retrospect, I think this is wrong.

I think the correct resolution for this issue is simply to remove the
sentence.  Unless there is an objection that is what I will do.



    >        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.

Oops, oversight by me.  I just missed a use of the word.  It has been
corrected by changing "consultation" to "communication."

Thanks for catching this.

Jim