Re: IESG Issue 22

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:19:00 -0400 (EDT)
    From:        Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
    Message-ID:  <200310081319.h98DJ0Jl010805@newdev.harvard.edu>

Scott:

  | I do not think the WG needed to be asked this type of editorial nit        
  | question

I agree with you the other times you made this observation, but not
for this one in particular.

To save everyone going back to Avri's mail, this one is ...

>>      The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
>>      one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.
>
> s/one-half of each of/one-half of/

I don't agree that making the change is a no-op.   Assuming that
the IESG and IAB are (approximately) the same size, then one half
of the IESG and IAB sitting members could be interpreted as all
of the IAB, and none of the IESG (which just could happen should
the entire IAB, or IESG, decide to resign over some matter of
principle).

Given that half the sitting members of the combined bodies are
being reviewed, one could interpret this as meaning that there is
no need to review any of the members of the body which did not
resign en mass.

Keep the "each of", it is not redundant.

On the other hand, the other change requested in the same issue truly
is trivial (s/is/are/) but was a consequence of the change above that
should not be made, so it should not be made either.

kre