I support changing these to "must".
We don't of course have any mechanisms to enforce this (especially
discussions by other IETF community members on non-IETF mailing
lists)... but currently, asking people to treat nominee lists *as if*
they were confidential (even though they were not) has had the effect
of preventing public discussions about the candidates (on e.g.
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing list).
I don't think such discussions would be helpful for the goals
of the NomCom process (or the IETF in general), and I think the
document should send a clear message that they're not acceptable
in the future either (instead of leaving wiggle room that they
might be OK in some circumstances).
Best regards,
Pasi
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
ext Spencer Dawkins
Sent: 09 June, 2009 23:33
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Subject: Fw: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating
Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP
Brian Carpenter had a Last Call comment that I needed to follow up
on...
Hi,
(IETF list not copied as I'm on leave and minimising email, but
there is nothing confidential about this comment.)
Feedback on nominees should always be provided privately to
NomCom. Nominees should not solicit support, and other IETF
community members should not post statements of support/
non-support for nominees in any public forum.
I believe these three occurrences of 'should' need to be 'must'.
I don't think there should be any wiggle room on this point.
Brian
Russ thinks I should check on this with the rest of the community, so
I'm
asking for feedback now.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf