Re: Qualifying for NomCom

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Thu, 07 April 2016 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A012D12D73C for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CZ2Cu_UWN-BY for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE9E112D103 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e185so117156495vkb.1 for <>; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=7zHHVZNzgqt62Ug5g5MojLQ1mGttFtRFeCoesl2thqg=; b=JvWHTa6WmK7okT8NlWR1yE79L8xC4oxno3N82O4rIgAN1vs84j2B07ZLnz4Nq7aley /n8a2LW61MpcjOYKvX4NYPAwq/NTpwEJwDdMiMIuRc4KW1BJRIBrzEpN0ieTjbtZ3R6x LhitQegkh6vHpRZ3MLqSzyscmB2+ZKc6SqEmhMeJUco3YXkOWPERXLVVQHdezneQKDEI 8ugtJ1qztaGnjXx/f/ZwQYD4FdyUEWx5FEl9xSU7WvNrnholiTqpSzVzCd81R9PFXWm6 pa0fDsDj+7Z9YWZubEsLFyzNKSs3v2fBteU23sOYRePyKSd2n+KMk7gf/oxhwkGGeLYG KePQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=7zHHVZNzgqt62Ug5g5MojLQ1mGttFtRFeCoesl2thqg=; b=HqfxoFKX9SQL7cLG4Dlpx2hv4oKy45kSwwjfb6Uyhnf/IG3CwwBYKRmNTBN8AQ6R+d XylIe4hy6xYNFIXIPPiv2IxRS4GPc92HKaIuVrNjkNeUeglX6lV97LjZQWzGjSp6lLs/ hHes9SG3wlMHV15YLxsJwyLgyNOwLhnZGCMlHZzSNPniaHR7me0AlqJGFlTkgxE2ZfmM 4GejHm2lr54hWOQqL9wc9tzHm1jnHFGnOW+aMXDxSp0Yrc02aL9dHl3Q629O9ODMxOVF iDvugW8scJS/DpJ8wGi/m9I3M0xnqrmAriiab0J8h75QHcnLjjDgkooFL1E8DcQnVp7s QY0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLrPE7+YMNbJWPTgIn9v2otFFNT+0nWqbgQizwGnUHQx7swg4nUYOPx3lP73G43As1SLosnz56sptKTvQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 92mr2578679uaz.66.1460066907089; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:08:26 -0300
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c123f1c58734c052fec5107
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Michael Richardson <>, ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 22:08:29 -0000

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Harald Alvestrand <>

> - Scope objections and aborts to the time between the announcement of the
> final list of volunteers and the selection of the comittee. This closes the
> loophole that the powers-that-be can look at the selected nomcom, say "we
> don't like this group", and force a re-selection by spuriously objecting.


> - The timing says "This experiment is defined to last for one year,
> starting and ending with the constitution of the next NomCom after this
> document is approved and published." - this is neither determinate nor
> grammatical, I think - in particular, it starts and ends at the same time.

The NomCom is no longer constituted when it dissolves, which is what I
meant by that.  But I can be more explicit.

> I suggest "This experiment is defined to start with the first call for
> volunteers after IESG approval of this document, and ends with the
> selection of the nomcom from that volunteer pool. Evaluation of the
> experiment will be done after the selection process of the formed nomcom
> completes."

We might be splitting hairs, but to my mind, the experiment continues
beyond the seating of the NomCom, because that NomCom was formed under the
terms of the experiment; so the experiment truly ends when that NomCom
completes its obligations and dissolves.

> Otherwise - go for it!

I'll fold the above in.  Any other feedback?