On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13/09/2014 19:03, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
> 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.
I'm all for this clarification. I don't believe it's a change in intent,
so it's fine as part of a clean-up pass.
Maybe s/should/must/ in the last sentence.
That all sounds good to me. I'll do it in -01.
Thanks!
-MSK