Dave Crocker wrote:
...
First you focused on "ambiguity", when that seems pretty clearly not to
be the issue -- although I note that you have not responded to that
observation.
IMHO RFC3777, like most RFCs, contains ambiguity, imprecision
and gaps. That's why we revise RFCs from time to time, when running
code reveals these problems.
Now you focus on the difference between the two people who head the IAB
and IESG, versus the entirety of those bodies, as if the two Chairs are
devoid of potential for CoI.
There's an enormous difference between the two chairs being copied on
a mail thread, which did happen, and discussion being invoked in the two
bodies, which did not happen.
Neither of those provide a substantive response to the concern about
Nomcom independence.
The concern, as I understand it, was about potential bias in the selection
of Nomcom. And I have responded - IMHO the correct fix is for the process
document to be specific about where the NomCom Chair should go for
advice when there is a glitch in the selection process.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf