On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote:
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?
It sounds like you would rather get rid of the nomcom and have the
confirming body do the work from the start.
Actually to the opposite: I firmly believed it is the nomcom who makes
the selection.
If you quote my full messages, I said
First of all, I fully agree with others it should be
the candidate's choice about what to disclose to whom.
Just that personally and for myself, I would not mind whoever I had
concern with to know about it.
I have heard it said that the IETF, in the most recent discussion
that failed up update that portion of what we now call 3777, had a
90/10 consensus and didn't come to a perfect consensus.
I did not participate in 3777 formation. If above is the case, my own
vote would be that 90/10 is a lot more than a "rough consensus", and
we should just write down precisely what that is.
I think we have to say what the role and reach of the confirming
body is, which may require us to think hard about what it means to
have "rough consensus".
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf