Re: On revising 3777 as in draft-klensin-recall-rev-00

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 08:49 AM 11/16/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
*** Status:   Unknown Signature
*** Signer:   Unknown Key (0xE598D05E)
*** Signed:   11/16/2005 8:49:35 AM
*** Verified: 11/16/2005 10:05:00 AM
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***



--On 16. november 2005 08:28 -0800 Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Someone else noted in a private conversation that the current nomcom (and
I added including the liaisons) should be excluded from signing recall
petitions.  What are others' thoughts on that?

I see no reason to; they won't be the nomcom that selects them.
The fewer special cases we have, the better - IMHO.


Right. Here is my line of thinking on that: The nomcom is a great place to tell secrets (almost like a confessional box); the nomcom members are at a disadvantage in that they can't go fact-checking on those secrets (confidentiality rules forbid them from doing so). If I were a petitioner, I'd find nomcom members to be good candidates to convince to sign my petition.

Lakshminath




*** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]