On 03/17/2013 04:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, March 17, 2013 15:52 -0700 Doug Barton
wrote:
On 03/17/2013 08:20 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
If the
confirming body knows things about a candidate that were not
available to the Nomcom, then it should apply that knowledge.
And, if th
--On Sunday, March 17, 2013 15:52 -0700 Doug Barton
wrote:
> On 03/17/2013 08:20 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> If the
>> confirming body knows things about a candidate that were not
>> available to the Nomcom, then it should apply that knowledge.
>> And, if the confirming body sees something in
On 03/17/2013 08:20 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
If the
confirming body knows things about a candidate that were not
available to the Nomcom, then it should apply that knowledge.
And, if the confirming body sees something in whatever the
Nomcom chooses to tell it about qualifications/expectations th
--On Sunday, March 17, 2013 08:06 + Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
>...
> I don't think it is at all clear that the confirming body
> should be allowed to mess with the criteria suggested by the
> IESG (or IAB or IAOC as the case may be) and then interpreted
> and tuned by the NomCom. On the cont
o were around when the NOMCOM process was first created will
> remember that one of the primary motivations for its creation was
> expressly to get the IETF out of precisely that situation.
>
> It seems to me that the real question here is what is the role of the
> confirming body?
On 3/16/13 4:54 PM, James Galvin wrote:
>
>
>
> It seems to me that the real question here is what is the role of the
> confirming body? Should its role be biased towards a review (however
> deep) of the work of the NOMCOM or should its role be biased towards
> en
ke this part of RFC 3777 sufficiently
clear that every Nomcom will see itself having the same authority every
year. (How it exercises that each year is an entirely different matter...)
It seems to me that the real question here is what is the role of the
confirming body? Should its role be b
who were around when the NOMCOM process was first created will
remember that one of the primary motivations for its creation was
expressly to get the IETF out of precisely that situation.
It seems to me that the real question here is what is the role of the
confirming body? Should its role