RE: IESG Issue 2

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

fully agree

---
From Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com  Wed Oct  8 11:31:27 2003
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: RE: IESG Issue 2
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:30:13 -0400
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: IESG Issue 2
Thread-Index: AcONmnRqk8BfAomCQRC/50Pm+CGi3QAFeCaA
From: <Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com>
To: <sob@harvard.edu>, <ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2003 15:30:14.0993 (UTC) FILETIME=[12294C10:01C38DB1]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by newdev.harvard.edu id h98FVQ6U011527


Hi Scott,

> I see little reason to do a new search if the case is someone with
> time left in their IAB term moving from the IAB to the IESG. I do
> not see a realistic problem that would be solved by doing so.  The
> community suggested people for the IAB already in the process and
> the IAB members should be generalists (i.e. no IAB topic-specific
> seats)

I agree with you in the general case.  In other words, I think it
would be fine to fill 6 IAB postions from the nominations that
were made for 5 open positions.  I don't think that everyone
agrees with this, but I do.

In an interim replacement, though, this is less clear.  If, for
example, a sitting IAB member had been chosen to replace Erik
Nordmark (instead of me), I don't think that the nomcom should
have filled that now-open IAB position without a new call for 
nominationsm (even though they had a list of previous nominations
from the full selection cycle).
 
Margaret