Re: IESG issue 2 (Re: IESG issues with draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07)

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

The quoted text below from KRE is entirely consistent with what
I thought this WG was saying (and trying to say) with the current
text.  I agree with KRE that the best approach would be to fix
the wording to be more clear, given that some IESG folks find the
current text confusing, rather than to try to change the intended
meaning.

Ran

On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 07:56 America/Montreal, Robert Elz wrote:
> Reading the procedure, it is fairly clear (to me anyway) that the
> vacancy occurs only after confirmation (and announcement) of the new
> positions, and is then handled just like any other mid term vacancy
> (like one occurring in the middle of the normal term for whatever 
> reason).
>
> If the wording needs to be tweaked to make that even clearer, I doubt
> anyone would object.
>
> I don't think there's any rational way to have the newly vacant 
> position
> filled as a part of the initial nomcom process though (though the 
> nomcom
> may well be aware that a vacancy is likely, and perpare for it, so the
> mid-term vacancy processing might end up being quite quick by 
> comparison
> with other events).  And this is regardless of whether the new 
> position is
> an IESG position or an IAB position.
>
> To answer Avri's final question:
>
> > Do full mid term replacement rules, including public announcement 
> > apply
> > to this case?
>
> Yes, of course they do.   I find it hard to even imagine how the
> text can be read so as to imply otherwise.   All this happens after
> confirmation and announcement of the results of the nomcom process
> that caused it - not during.
>
> kre