I have one discussion point and a number of small nits...
Fine comments, all; thanks for taking the time.
I don't really see the discussion point as needing discussion. You're
right, and I'll fix that set of stuff in the next version. I could
say why certain text got in there in the first place (from early
comments and discussion), but it doesn't matter: I agree that it
should be changed.
There are just two points in your comments that I want to pursue:
15.2. People serving in the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor
may not volunteer to serve as voting members of the
nominating committee.
Slight problem with the term "RFC Editor" since this is a single person
and also a service function. I suspect you mean the latter.
I do, and I actually had the same problem with it when I wrote it as
you do. So help me, please: How *should* this be put? I don't like,
"and those employed in the RFC Editor function," and I really can't
think of a concise, clean, accurate way to write it down, though we
all (today) know what it means. Text, please, someone.
o In bullet 16, to correct an erratum, the last paragraph is
replaced by this:
One possible selection method is described in RFC 3797 [1].
Perfectly correct, but I don't think this document is the place to
correct random errata.
I was (and am) ambivalent here. I did not have this in my first
version. SM did. When we merged the proposals, I thought it was a
good idea to fix that. But you're right that it's rather off topic,
and the right place to do that would be 3777bis, which this decidedly
is NOT.
I'm inclined to pull it out (having not checked that with SM yet,
though). Does anyone (including SM) think it definitely needs to be
in here?
Barry