Re: WG Last Call

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

At 14:20 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote:
> Sorry to be so long in responding
> to this.  Speaking as editor:
>
>
> Oops, oversight by me.  I just missed a use of the word.  It
> has been
> corrected by changing "consultation" to
> "communication."


No... that's not the correct change.  


 From the May 22 note::::




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


The CBs have their own roles and MUST NOT be overly influenced by the
Nomcom.  So "in consultation with" needs to go.

Brian proposed some alternate text which I can live with:

>   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.


> Thanks for catching this.
>
> Jim
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager:
> <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>