Re: WG Last Call

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

Speaking as editor:



On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Michael StJohns wrote:

    *sigh* The confirming bodies do NOT make their decisions "in
    communication with the nominating committee" Delete that phrase from
    the first clause and make it read

    "The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and consent to
    some, all, or none of the candidates."

But they do communicate.  They receive supporting documentation and they
are permitted to ask questions.  In fact, there is an expectation of
communication.

The "in communication with" was explicitly added to ensure that the
NOMCOM and the confirming body do not have a wall between them.  To
remove the phrase you suggest is, in my opinion as editor, not an
editorial change.

Jim



    At 15:10 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote:
    >Speaking as editor:
    >
    >
    >The change to which you are referring was made in the body of that
    >particular rule.  What Brian just did was notice that the rule itself
    >was not changed.
    >
    >The complete rule now says: (from Section 3, Rule 7)
    >
    >
    >        3.  The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and,
    >            in communication with the nominating committee, consent to
    >            some, all, or none of the candidates.
    >
    >            The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates.
    >
    >            The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB
    >            candidates.
    >
    >            The confirming bodies conduct their review using all
    >            information and any means acceptable to them, including but
    >            not limited to the supporting information provided by the
    >            nominating committee, information known personally to members
    >            of the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming
    >            body, the results of interactions within the confirming
    >            bodies, and the confirming bodies interpretation of what is
    >            in the best interests of the IETF community.
    >
    >            If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the
    >            nominating committee with respect to those open positions is
    >            complete.
    >
    >            If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming
    >            body are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate
    >            with the nominating committee both to explain the reason why
    >            all the candidates were not confirmed and to understand the
    >            nominating committee's rationale for its candidates.
    >
    >            The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in
    >            which case the nominating committee must select alternate
    >            candidates for the rejected candidates.
    >
    >            Any additional time required by the nominating committee
    >            should not exceed its maximum time allotment.
    >
    >
    >This is what I understood the desired change to be.