Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 17 August 2012 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA63121F844E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NTBgogGCOPAZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23FCE21F8452 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1T2SCu-0005jO-FS; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:27:44 -0400
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:33:56 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt
Message-ID: <F2A3035E068E6FC52574866C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLjHD4OwnnkwxuW2FVG7mOD9_UtuoJsByO4WPOoE2PF6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120816212429.3635.98463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJKfGW-VWTQT1wUOia-=idwq0f-H=zhvFVcTxvqrvSu7pQ@mail.gmail.com> <06515DE7-EA23-45EC-9C85-E4003777073F@vigilsec.com> <93CCDEE4ED0AB0B11FD5FF71@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CALaySJLjHD4OwnnkwxuW2FVG7mOD9_UtuoJsByO4WPOoE2PF6g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:34:14 -0000

--On Friday, August 17, 2012 15:05 -0400 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> Russ has raised a couple of good points.  I like John's
> solution to one of them, and SM has proposed a good solution
> to the other off list.  I have the following changes in the
> pending next version.
> 
> I've slightly edited John's text, and Section 4, bullet 3,
> paragraph 1 will now change to this:
> 
>    The nominating committee comprises a Chair, ten voting
> volunteers,    the immediate past nominating committee Chair
> as an advisor, plus    liaisons and possible additional
> advisor(s) as described herein.

Yes, much better.  I realized after I sent the note that I
intended to say "Section 4 of RFC 3777 as amended by subsequent
documents including this one", but your text is more to the
point.

> SM suggests fixing the "liaisons" issue by changing the
> definition of "sitting member" instead of by trying to explain
> it in bullet 15.1.  I agree that that's cleaner.
> 
> The update to Section 2, paragraph 6 will change to this:
> 
> sitting member:  A person who is currently serving a term of
> membership       in, and having a standing to participate in
> the decisions of,       the IESG, the IAB, the IAOC, or the
> ISOC Board of Trustees.       Liaisons from other bodies are
> not sitting members, by this definition.       (For example,
> an IESG liaison to the IAB is not a sitting member of
> the IAB, though it may be a sitting member of the IESG.)

This is still a tad ambiguous in principle (only).  For example,
it isn't clear whether, by that definition, the IAB Chair is a
sitting member of the IESG (no vote, but excluded from the
Nomcom as a sitting member of the IAB) or whether the IETF Chair
is a sitting member of the IAB (votes, but excluded from the
Nomcom anyway as a sitting member of the IESG).  There are other
such cases, but I believe all of them are, in practice, excluded
by some other rule.

>...

So I think it is ok... and the marginal aesthetics are not worth
worrying about.

    john