Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> At 10:46 PM 3/17/2008, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>>>>> *The names of people nominated should be made public.
>>>>>> *The names of the people who agreed to serve if selected should be
>>>>>> kept secret.
...
>> Brian, many thinks are easy to say without thinking things through.
>> Or without reading carefully.
...
>> The proposal was for disclosure of those nominated.
>
> Afaik "nominated" in the RFC 3777 context means nominated
> to the slate; at every earlier stage the people under
> consideration are "candidates". Hence my confusion...
Well, the odds were at least even that the "without reading carefully" was mine
rather than yours, but I took the particular 2-bullet list of Harald's to mean
that "selected" came later. Indeed, later in his message there is:
"The reasoning I have is that several people argued that they did not
want it publicly known that they were willing to stand against an
incumbent - but they could always blame the fact that they were
nominated on someone else"
which seems to confirm that he meant "nominated" in terms of a name being given
to Nomcom for consideration among a set of candidates.
>> Hence, any public comment would be accepted during the same period as
>> the Nomcom normally seeks comments explicitly. No change in timeline is
>> needed.
>>
>>
>>> 2. Explicitly reduce the confirming bodies' role to verifying
>>> that due process has been followed, since there is clearly no
>>> scope for further debate about the chosen nominees after step 1.
>> Frankly this sounds like an entirely independent issue, unrelated to the
>> current proposal.
>
> I don't think so. If we switch to comments from the public on a public
> list, I can't see any role for the confirming bodies in debating
> the NomCom's individual choices.
Some plausible reasons for continuying the role of the confirming bodies:
1. Making names who are nominated public is separate from conducting public
discussion about those named.
2. Given extensive IETF history, it is unlikely that public discussion would
converge.
3. For all of the public discussion that might occur, there are likely to be
facts and concerns that are available privately that are not available publicly.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf