[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

2008-03-17 20:10:57

On Mar 17, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:44:49 -0700
Christian Huitema <huitema(_at_)windows(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:

And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under

"I accept the nomination of area director.  The current area
director, Mr. J. Sixpack, has been attempting to impose his
opinion that beer should contain rice.  This is causing a rift
in the working groups within the area.  I would follow the area
consensus that we should outlaw rice in beer and thus my
appointment as new area director would achieve peace and
harmony within the area."

Why should such a statement be confidential?

Try this one, quite non-hypothetical: a candidate for the IESG is
contemplating switching jobs.  His or her current employer does not  
know this.  It has a clear bearing on whether or not that person can  
the job of AD, but equally clearly should not be broadcast to the  

- it could be the case that one of NOMCOM members were in the same  
   withe the candidate
- and the confidentiality rule protects the candidate, right?
- shouldn't/isn't the confirming body bounded by the same
   confidentiality rule?

IETF mailing list