On 13 Sep 2014, at 02:51, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jari. > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Section 5.12 seems to have text that relates to pre-RFC5680 situation: > > The consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if all > parties to the consultation agree to observe the same confidentiality > rules as the nominating committee itself. > > Shouldn’t this be changed? Or am I missing something? > > As I read this, "consultations" refers to meetings between a NomCom member and a community member that might have comments about specific candidates, not a list or short list of eligible candidates. Unless I've misunderstood RFC5680, there's been no change to the confidentiality of those conversations, so that paragraph stands correct as-is. > > What did you have in mind here? Indeed, RFC 5680 changed only the list to be open, not the feedback that people send. I guess I had some trouble understanding what the text specifically says. Your read of the meaning is fine, inline with RFC 5860 and exactly what should happen. But it was not so clear to me. The consultations might also refer to the general desired expertise question which text preceding this text talks about. In that case names of candidates shouldn’t even come to the picture. The way I read the paragraph is that it talks about what we used to do: send list of names to some selected set of community members, and get back feedback. If this is the correct reading, then maybe the text should change. But perhaps my point is that the text can be read in different ways. But maybe I’m the only one getting confused, and if so, that’s fine. I don’t know if we want to make any clarifications (even editorial) in this republication of the BCP, but if I were to write the text from scratch today, I’d say: The consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if all parties to the consultation agree to observe the same confidentiality rules as the nominating committee itself, or the names are public as discussed in Section 3.6. Feedback on individual nominees should always be confidential. Jari
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail