On Mar 17, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Dan Wing 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?
Imagine it is complaining about an IAB member, and the IAB is
the confirming body. That outgoing IAB member is part of the
IAB until the new IAB is seated. That outgoing IAB member may
well take offense to someone thinking rice is unsuitable for
First of all, I fully agree with others it should be the candidate's
choice about what to disclose to whom.
having said that, if I were the candidate in question and had a
dispute with an IAB member, I'd want the confirming body to know
everything to make a good judgment call.
Call me an idealist:), I personally believe, generally speaking, it is
better to put everything on the table, rather than partial info,
between nomcom and confirming body.
Step up a level: wonder where this discussion is leading to?
Exactly how to revise 3777?
IETF mailing list