Dave Crocker wrote: ...
First you focused on "ambiguity", when that seems pretty clearly not to be the issue -- although I note that you have not responded to that observation.
IMHO RFC3777, like most RFCs, contains ambiguity, imprecision and gaps. That's why we revise RFCs from time to time, when running code reveals these problems.
Now you focus on the difference between the two people who head the IAB and IESG, versus the entirety of those bodies, as if the two Chairs are devoid of potential for CoI.
There's an enormous difference between the two chairs being copied on a mail thread, which did happen, and discussion being invoked in the two bodies, which did not happen.
Neither of those provide a substantive response to the concern about Nomcom independence.
The concern, as I understand it, was about potential bias in the selection of Nomcom. And I have responded - IMHO the correct fix is for the process document to be specific about where the NomCom Chair should go for advice when there is a glitch in the selection process. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf