I support changing these to "must". We don't of course have any mechanisms to enforce this (especially discussions by other IETF community members on non-IETF mailing lists)... but currently, asking people to treat nominee lists *as if* they were confidential (even though they were not) has had the effect of preventing public discussions about the candidates (on e.g. ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing list). I don't think such discussions would be helpful for the goals of the NomCom process (or the IETF in general), and I think the document should send a clear message that they're not acceptable in the future either (instead of leaving wiggle room that they might be OK in some circumstances). Best regards, Pasi > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > ext Spencer Dawkins > Sent: 09 June, 2009 23:33 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Fw: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating > Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP > > Brian Carpenter had a Last Call comment that I needed to follow up > on... > > > > Hi, > > > > (IETF list not copied as I'm on leave and minimising email, but > > there is nothing confidential about this comment.) > > > >> Feedback on nominees should always be provided privately to > >> NomCom. Nominees should not solicit support, and other IETF > >> community members should not post statements of support/ > >> non-support for nominees in any public forum. > > > > I believe these three occurrences of 'should' need to be 'must'. > > I don't think there should be any wiggle room on this point. > > > > Brian > > Russ thinks I should check on this with the rest of the community, so > I'm > asking for feedback now. > > Thanks, > > Spencer > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf