RE: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

How about asking Heather for the appropriate term?
Seems easier than guessing :-)

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 21 August 2012 20:45
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
> 
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> I have one discussion point and a number of small nits...
> >
> > ...
> >
> > There are just two points in your comments that I want to pursue:
> >
> >>       15.2.  People serving in the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor
> >>            may not volunteer to serve as voting members of the
> >>            nominating committee.
> >>
> >> Slight problem with the term "RFC Editor" since this is a single person
> >> and also a service function. I suspect you mean the latter.
> >
> > I do, and I actually had the same problem with it when I wrote it as
> > you do.  So help me, please: How *should* this be put?  I don't like,
> > "and those employed in the RFC Editor function," and I really can't
> > think of a concise, clean, accurate way to write it down, though we
> > all (today) know what it means.  Text, please, someone.
> 
> In particular, I believe the there are Editorial Boards that the
> various fragments of the RFC Editor appoint and consult which should
> not be excluded.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  [e-mail]
> 
> >>    o  In bullet 16, to correct an erratum, the last paragraph is
> >>       replaced by this:
> >>
> >>          One possible selection method is described in RFC 3797 [1].
> >>
> >> Perfectly correct, but I don't think this document is the place to
> >> correct random errata.
> >
> > I was (and am) ambivalent here.  I did not have this in my first
> > version.  SM did.  When we merged the proposals, I thought it was a
> > good idea to fix that.  But you're right that it's rather off topic,
> > and the right place to do that would be 3777bis, which this decidedly
> > is NOT.
> >
> > I'm inclined to pull it out (having not checked that with SM yet,
> > though).  Does anyone (including SM) think it definitely needs to be
> > in here?
> >
> > Barry