Re: IESG Issue 2 (publication of requirements)

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

    Date:        Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:46:26 -0500
    From:        Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>
    Message-ID:  <6.0.0.22.2.20031106193307.02236058@pop.mindspring.com>

  | requirements, then there will be a very large discussion and if even one of 
  | the comments was ignored or excluded (or appeared to be ignored or 
  | excluded), then the selection process will be appealed and we really don't 
  | want that.

To quote the draft ...

   The following rules apply to the process.

   1.  The results of this process are final and binding.  There is no
       appeal.

This is why we have the confirmation process (any "issues" are
dealt with there).

  | The general input from the membership should come in through the Nomcom WG 
  | and the Nomcom and the Nomcom's interaction with the membership.

Of course.

  | The IAB/IESG guidance

We're not discussing guidance here, but qualification requirements.

The IAB and IESG, and their members individually if they desire, just
like everyone else, are free to provide additional "guidance" to the
nomcom.

The approach that has been agreed by everyone else on this point seems
correct to me.

kre