While philosophically I agree with Brian, practically I have to disagree.
My reasoning is that while we don't want that sort of thing to happen,
the only enforcement mechanism is what the nomcom chooses to do. And
while I would hope that they would consider such misbehavior a negative,
I don't think that, to take an extreme example, one minor mis-comment in
the wrong place should disqualify the nominee the nomcom strongly prefers.
So I am not sure what making this a MUST would do.
(In terms of IETF wording, it would be a MUST because there is no
circumstance under which a compliant implementation, aka person, would
do that. But writing it that way does not seem to help us.)
Joel
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Brian Carpenter had a Last Call comment that I needed to follow up on...
Hi,
(IETF list not copied as I'm on leave and minimising email, but
there is nothing confidential about this comment.)
Feedback on nominees should always be provided privately to
NomCom. Nominees should not solicit support, and other IETF
community members should not post statements of support/
non-support for nominees in any public forum.
I believe these three occurrences of 'should' need to be 'must'.
I don't think there should be any wiggle room on this point.
Brian
Russ thinks I should check on this with the rest of the community, so
I'm asking for feedback now.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf