On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote: > >> Call me an idealist:), I personally believe, generally speaking, it >> is better to put everything on the table, rather than partial info, >> between nomcom and confirming body. >> >> Step up a level: wonder where this discussion is leading to? >> Exactly how to revise 3777? > > It sounds like you would rather get rid of the nomcom and have the > confirming body do the work from the start.
Actually to the opposite: I firmly believed it is the nomcom who makes the selection. If you quote my full messages, I said First of all, I fully agree with others it should be the candidate's choice about what to disclose to whom. Just that personally and for myself, I would not mind whoever I had concern with to know about it. > I have heard it said that the IETF, in the most recent discussion > that failed up update that portion of what we now call 3777, had a > 90/10 consensus and didn't come to a perfect consensus. I did not participate in 3777 formation. If above is the case, my own vote would be that 90/10 is a lot more than a "rough consensus", and we should just write down precisely what that is. > I think we have to say what the role and reach of the confirming > body is, which may require us to think hard about what it means to > have "rough consensus". _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf