At 08:49 AM 11/16/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
*** Status: Unknown Signature
*** Signer: Unknown Key (0xE598D05E)
*** Signed: 11/16/2005 8:49:35 AM
*** Verified: 11/16/2005 10:05:00 AM
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
--On 16. november 2005 08:28 -0800 Lakshminath Dondeti
<ldondeti(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
Someone else noted in a private conversation that the current nomcom (and
I added including the liaisons) should be excluded from signing recall
petitions. What are others' thoughts on that?
I see no reason to; they won't be the nomcom that selects them.
The fewer special cases we have, the better - IMHO.
Right. Here is my line of thinking on that: The nomcom is a great
place to tell secrets (almost like a confessional box); the nomcom
members are at a disadvantage in that they can't go fact-checking on
those secrets (confidentiality rules forbid them from doing so). If
I were a petitioner, I'd find nomcom members to be good candidates to
convince to sign my petition.
Lakshminath
*** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf