On 2008-03-19 16:40, Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-03-19 15:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
At 10:46 PM 3/17/2008, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
*The names of people nominated should be made public.
*The names of the people who agreed to serve if selected should be
Open enough to get feedback, but kind to the rejected candidates.
It's very tempting to say +1 without thinking about the unintended
Brian, many thinks are easy to say without thinking things through.
Or without reading carefully.
Clearly, if NomCom published a proposed slate and ask for comments
(to be kept confidential) they would get a lot of comments. However,
if they published a proposed slate and said "we have now sent this
to the Confirming Body", something rather different would probably
Since the proposal was for disclosure much earlier in the process, what
is the point of introducing the issue of being selected by Nomcom?
Nothing in the proposal imposes additional tasks to the confirming body.
1. Add a new period to the timeline for the community to send
comments to NomCom and for NomCom to consider those comments,
and possibly change the slate as a result (in which case, GOTO 1).
The proposal was for disclosure of those nominated.
Afaik "nominated" in the RFC 3777 context means nominated
to the slate; at every earlier stage the people under
consideration are "candidates". Hence my confusion...
Hence, any public comment would be accepted during the same period as
the Nomcom normally seeks comments explicitly. No change in timeline is
2. Explicitly reduce the confirming bodies' role to verifying
that due process has been followed, since there is clearly no
scope for further debate about the chosen nominees after step 1.
Frankly this sounds like an entirely independent issue, unrelated to the
I don't think so. If we switch to comments from the public on a public
list, I can't see any role for the confirming bodies in debating
the NomCom's individual choices.
IETF mailing list