On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote:
>
>> Call me an idealist:), I personally believe, generally speaking, it
>> is better to put everything on the table, rather than partial info,
>> between nomcom and confirming body.
>>
>> Step up a level: wonder where this discussion is leading to?
>> Exactly how to revise 3777?
>
> It sounds like you would rather get rid of the nomcom and have the
> confirming body do the work from the start.
Actually to the opposite: I firmly believed it is the nomcom who makes
the selection.
If you quote my full messages, I said
First of all, I fully agree with others it should be
the candidate's choice about what to disclose to whom.
Just that personally and for myself, I would not mind whoever I had
concern with to know about it.
> I have heard it said that the IETF, in the most recent discussion
> that failed up update that portion of what we now call 3777, had a
> 90/10 consensus and didn't come to a perfect consensus.
I did not participate in 3777 formation. If above is the case, my own
vote would be that 90/10 is a lot more than a "rough consensus", and
we should just write down precisely what that is.
> I think we have to say what the role and reach of the confirming
> body is, which may require us to think hard about what it means to
> have "rough consensus".
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf