Sam, Thanks for raising this issue. The issue about what kind of candidates are suitable for the task. However, even if you asked us to not reply to your mail on the public list, I wanted to do it for one aspect. I have a suggestion that relates to who you are directing your criticism to. You've been a part of the nomination process, you know it is not easy. When it comes to feedback on candidates and the tasks, noncom does need your feedback. Please tell them what you think. But when it comes to the "off in the wilderness" part, I have a very strong opinion. Please do not take it out on the noncom, confirming bodies, or the process. I think the buck stops in this particular situation with the IESG, whose requirements they are following. Just like when the spec is wrong, you do not blame the vendor. And yes, we at the IESG do see this as a serious situation. And we have taken steps to explain the situation to the community, arrange an opportunity to discuss what we should do, and, I believe, eventually we will revise the requirements and let the nomination process complete. I actually believe bringing the issue up to the community is a good thing, rather than having the noncom, the IESG, or the confirming bodies just making a decision without telling you about the circumstances. We are obviously open to feedback on how all this should be done, particularly when this is a new situation for all of us. But I just wanted to say that if you have criticism on the overall situation, the right place to send feedback is the IESG. You can start with me, I am committed to resolving this somehow. I need all my team members in place :-) Thanks, Jari