ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Consolidating BCP 10 (Operation of the NomCom)

2014-09-13 22:01:46
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

On 13/09/2014 19:03, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
But maybe I’m the only one getting confused, and if so, that’s fine. I
don’t know if we want to make any clarifications (even editorial) in this
republication of the BCP, but if I were to write the text from scratch
today, I’d say:

   The consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if all
   parties to the consultation agree to observe the same confidentiality
   rules as the nominating committee itself, or the names are public as
   discussed in Section 3.6. Feedback on individual nominees should
   always be confidential.

I'm all for this clarification. I don't believe it's a change in intent,
so it's fine as part of a clean-up pass.

Maybe s/should/must/ in the last sentence.


That all sounds good to me.  I'll do it in -01.

Thanks!

-MSK