Dave, all, We talked about this in the Monday plenary. Obviously people have read or understood the situation in different ways. But that should not stop us from reaching a common understanding of the situation now that we realised we had read it differently. You indicated that you thought you saw consensus emerge on the list about the way that qualifications are determined. I am now attempting to see if the list believes this is how it should work: The bodies (IESG, IAB, …) themselves provide desirable qualifications to the nominating committee. The nominating committee may, however, itself determine what the final requirements are for specific positions. As a part of this effort, the nominating committee needs to evaluate the qualifications that it got in critical light, as well as to call for input from the community on the qualifications. However, the body for which persons are being searched is still responsible on how the work is organised. For instance, the IESG determines what areas there are, and therefore, what and how many area directors are needed. (And again, this mail is just about a process clarification, not something that should affect current nomcom process, this has nothing to do with selecting specific persons this year, etc.) Jari