Re: IESG Issue 2

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

    Date:        Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:36:39 +0200
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
    Message-ID:  <3F8412E7.EC8B4026@zurich.ibm.com>

  | I think Scott is correct that there is an asymmetry.

I think there could be, but I don't see any reason that it needs to be so.

  | An IAB member moving to an IESG position simply increases the number
  | of identical IAB slots to fill. The process should not require a new
  | call for nominees.

Perhaps, but filling that last (new) open IAB position is hardly
critical to anything - the IAB would manage just fine with one less
member for a month or two.   I would not create a special case just
to avoid that.

  | What is described in the draft is appropriate.

You're assuming that what the draft says is what it was claimed to
say.   I disagree with that, I believe that if you read it carefully
you'll find it says nothing of the kind.

  | An IESG member moving to the IAB creates an unannounced specific vacancy in 
  | the IESG. The process should require a new call for nominees.

yes, absolutely, and that's what I think the draft now assumes.   Perhaps
it could be made clearer that this is what it is saying, but I believe that
is what is already there.

Given that, while I have no problem with clarifying text, I certainly would
not be adding special text to allow something different just so the IAB can
have an extra member a little quicker.

kre