--On Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:47 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com> wrote:
I really think we want to stay away from any statement which
implies anything about the nominees views about anyone.
I do not think it is reasonable or practical to try to include
disclaimers in the list of nominees about eveyr
misapprehension that readers of the list may form.
We ought not be making any public statement about the nominees
degree of willingness to serve, degree of desire for change or
stability, or any other opinion about the nominee. We are
simply letting folks know that the nominee exists.
If we absolutely have to have a stronger disclaimer, I would
think it would need to be quite general, not specific about
nominees opinions on any one dimension. And certainly not a
list of thing on which the nominee is not expressing an
opinion in public.
And a strong disclaimer, perhaps any disclaimer, that applies to
all nominees would rapidly turn into boilerplate, i.e., a waste
of time that almost no one reads and fewer take seriously.
As we have seen in last year's round, there is nothing in the
confidentiality requirements that prevents a nominee from
posting anything he or she likes to the IETF list (or
elsewhere). Presumably attacks on other candidates would be
frowned upon, both by the community as a whole and by a Nomcom
that was trying to evaluate whether the Nominee understood the
IETF well enough to play well with others. And, if someone
wanted to post a public note saying "I think Elmer Fudd is doing
a really good job as Duck-hunting AD; I was asked to put my name
in and did so but I'm really not interested in the role unless
Elmer really doesn't want to serve another term", I think we
should neither encourage nor discourage that in any of these
documents.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf