On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 13/09/2014 19:03, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
But maybe I’m the only one getting confused, and if so, that’s fine. I
don’t know if we want to make any clarifications (even editorial) in this
republication of the BCP, but if I were to write the text from scratch
today, I’d say:
The consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if all
parties to the consultation agree to observe the same confidentiality
rules as the nominating committee itself, or the names are public as
discussed in Section 3.6. Feedback on individual nominees should
always be confidential.
I'm all for this clarification. I don't believe it's a change in intent,
so it's fine as part of a clean-up pass.
Maybe s/should/must/ in the last sentence.
That all sounds good to me. I'll do it in -01.
Thanks!
-MSK