Hi, Lakshminath, > Once we arrive at consensus conclusions on those, state those and revise > 3777 to delete text that is inconsistent with those conclusions. Unlike > other parts of our process, nomcoms are under hard time constraints and > much of the work happens in secrecy. We are already late for any > revision to be useful for the next nomcom. I'm speaking as someone who has filled out NomCom questionnaires in the past, multiple times, and someone who never dreamed that I should be looking on the IAB website for clues about what information would be shared outside the NomCom... You did something very GOOD this time - you invoked the never-before-invoked arbitration process, instead of secretly resolving an "irresistable force meets immovable object" dispute. Please accept credit for this good judgement, especially if you are assigning blame to yourself. Obviously, we're not going to revise RFC 3777 before the next NomCom is seated. The discussion to date has already identified an improvement that doesn't require RFC 3777bis in order to be implemented - clearly divide the questionnaire into "this information may be shared with confirming bodies" and "this information will not be shared outside NomCom". I think any sane incoming NomCom chair would plan to implement that improvement, based on this year's experiences, which past NomCom chairs have congratulated you for publicizing broadly. So, I don't think you guys did too badly. ;-) And thanks for your service to the community. Spencer _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf