Hi, Lakshminath,
Once we arrive at consensus conclusions on those, state those and revise
3777 to delete text that is inconsistent with those conclusions. Unlike
other parts of our process, nomcoms are under hard time constraints and
much of the work happens in secrecy. We are already late for any
revision to be useful for the next nomcom.
I'm speaking as someone who has filled out NomCom questionnaires in the
past, multiple times, and someone who never dreamed that I should be looking
on the IAB website for clues about what information would be shared outside
the NomCom...
You did something very GOOD this time - you invoked the never-before-invoked
arbitration process, instead of secretly resolving an "irresistable force
meets immovable object" dispute. Please accept credit for this good
judgement, especially if you are assigning blame to yourself.
Obviously, we're not going to revise RFC 3777 before the next NomCom is
seated. The discussion to date has already identified an improvement that
doesn't require RFC 3777bis in order to be implemented - clearly divide the
questionnaire into "this information may be shared with confirming bodies"
and "this information will not be shared outside NomCom". I think any sane
incoming NomCom chair would plan to implement that improvement, based on
this year's experiences, which past NomCom chairs have congratulated you for
publicizing broadly.
So, I don't think you guys did too badly. ;-)
And thanks for your service to the community.
Spencer
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf