thanks - the suggested language is helpful Scott > On Jan 20, 2016, at 6:48 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 16:16 -0500 "Scott O. Bradner" > <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> do you have any suggestions for rewording to make this >> clear(er)? > > (1) Take Brian's suggestion about the other problematic > statement. > > (2) In both the paragraph that bothered Brian and the one that > bothered me, but using the first one as an example, think about > whether you really need the rather pompous-sounding "In > furtherance of this requirement" and replace it with either > "Consistent with this requirement" or just drop it entirely and > have "The date and time...". It may be lawyer-speak to write > that way, but your audience, the last I checked, was not lawyers. > > See below. > >>> On Jan 20, 2016, at 4:04 PM, John C Klensin >>> <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> ... >>> --On Thursday, January 21, 2016 08:29 +1300 Brian E Carpenter >>> <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> I see this in the new text: >>>> "In furtherance of this requirement the date and time of the >>>> terms of individual regular IAOC members begin or end at the >>>> start of the IAOC meeting held during the first IETF..." >>>> >>>> I would find this a bit clearer if it said: >>>> "In furtherance of this requirement the date and time of the >>>> terms of new individual regular IAOC members begin at the >>>> start of the IAOC meeting held during the first IETF... and >>>> the terms of outgoing individual regular IAOC members end at >>>> the start of that meeting." > >>> yes. But the sentences I was most concerned about were: >>> >>>>> In furtherance of this requirement one of the regular or ex >>>>> officio IAOC members not eligible to be elected as the IAOC >>>>> Chair under BCP 101 or under adopted IAOC policies shall >>>>> open the IAOC meeting held during the first IETF meeting of >>>>> the year and act as a temporary Chair. The temporary chair >>>>> shall, as the first order of business in the meeting, call >>>>> for nominations for IAOC chair from among the members of >>>>> the IAOC defined as eligible for the role under BCP 101 or >>>>> under adopted IAOC policies. >>> >>> Now, read that quickly, ideally after a dose of strong drink >>> or equivalent to calibrate your perceptions, and then, without >>> studying BCP 101 or any the IAOC policies adopted since IASA >>> was created or any period of contemplation, tell me who is >>> eligible to be temporary chair for meeting. >> ... > > (3) Replace that paragraph with: > > "A temporary chair shall be selected to open the IAOC > meeting held during the first IETF meeting of the year. > The temporary chair shall be one of the regular or > ex-officio IAOC members who is not eligible to be > elected as the IAOC Chair. The first order of business > in the meeting shall be a call for nominations for IAOC > chair. The restrictions and requirements as to who may > be IAOC Chair are discussed in BCP 101, Section XXX, and > may be further restricted by policies by the IAOC and > found at <URL> under the heading ABCDEFG." > > I think that is shorter. It avoids the horribly (IMO) > convoluted sentences. It assumes the IETF community is smart > enough to figure out that everyone who is not eligible is > eligible and vice versa. It points to the requirements only > once and includes specific pointers into BCP 101 and to any > relevant requirements (if such requirements exist, it may > require a few minutes work on the appropriate web page, but I'd > assume that is within the capabilities of the IAD, IAOC, and the > staff on which they can call. If the IAOC cannot figure out > what "XXX" and "<URL>" are, we have bigger problems. > > Speaking of staff on which the IAOC might call, it may be useful > to remind the IAOC and IAD that it has a highly skilled > editorial team who are really good at this stuff under assorted > contracts as elements of the RFC Editor function. It would > almost certainly be more efficient to call on them to get > something right the first (or second) time than to expect > editing work to be done on the IETF list. > > And, yes, I'm annoyed at being asked to do this editing and > being asked to deal with the problem in the first place. I > think a document that hard to follow, given its purpose, is > unprofessional and that the IAOC should be considering who among > its membership has served too long, is not paying attention, or > should be resigning (for those or other reasons) rather than > waiting to be retired by appointing bodies. But that is just > my (admittedly annoyed) option, probably connected (although > that is not my intent) to disturbance over other issues that > have come up lately, especially consistent lack of transparency > about meeting planning and contracts. > > john > >