On 03/13/13 14:27, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote: > The task I think I agreed to, on Monday, was to formulate language > changes to RFC 3777, to make this more clear. > > Herewith: > >> 7. Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used > ... >> 2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its >> understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the >> qualifications required and advises each confirming body of its >> respective candidates. > > In practical terms, Nomcom is not in a position to conduct an actual > (formal) community-wide consensus process. It can solicit comments and > it can gauge those comments. But to characterize this sequence as an > "understanding of the IETF community's consensus" is unrealistic and > counterproductive, in my view. > > So I suggest: > > 2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its > determination of the requirements for the job, synthesized > from the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG or IAOC (as > appropriate), desires express by the community, and from the > nominating committee's own assessment; it then advises each > confirming body of its respective candidates; the nominating > committee shall provide supporting materials that cover its > selections, including the final version of requirements that > the nominating committee used when making its selections; > these requirements shall be made public after nominees are > confirmed. I'm not fine with your use of "requirements". The thing is, there are many "soft" requirements, i.e. the nomcom has a number considerations that are important, but it must make tradeoffs. Most alleged requirements are not hard. You could change "requirements" to "criteria". Or perhaps "... including the process the nominating committee used when making its selections ...". In any case calling everything the Nomcom takes into consideration "requirements" will be confusing to future readers. Scott