I agree. The redudancy should stay... It is just a single sentence,
and it could save us from later misunderstandings that would be
incredibly difficult to unravel.
I saw one message that asked whether the IAOC can remove/replace
their chair mid-year. Does that need to be clarified? What is the
corresponding process for IAB chair, if any?
Margaret
At 9:27 AM +0100 12/3/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On torsdag, desember 02, 2004 20:19:53 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)"
<bwijnen(_at_)lucent(_dot_)com> wrote:
Scott writes:
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 4 also says
The members of the IAOC choose their own chair each year using a
consensus mechanism of their choosing. Any appointed voting member
of the IAOC may serve as the IAOC Chair; the IETF Administrative
Director, the IETF Chair, the IAB Chair, the ISOC President/CEO, and
non-voting liaisons are not eligible to serve as IAOC Chair.
most of the 2nd sentence is redundant and not needed - once you
say that only appointed members can be chair you have it all defined
Discussed this with my co-editor Rob.
We both probably can live with removing it.
But we also both feel that the redundancy in this case does make it VERY
clear that we do not want those 3 specific IAOC members to become chair.
Other people with an opinion?
I think the redundancy should stay.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf