Re: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-nomcom-procexp-00.txt

John C Klensin <> Sun, 10 April 2016 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20E412D601 for <>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EMw6VdcFfLpd for <>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 780E012D5FB for <>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1apISO-000F02-UH; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:43:28 -0400
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:43:23 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>, Brian E Carpenter <>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-nomcom-procexp-00.txt
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
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
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Michael Richardson <>, IETF discussion list <>
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: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:43:35 -0000

--On Saturday, April 09, 2016 21:46 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
>> wrote:
>> Regardless, I would think we would want challenges that said
>> things like "Brian Carpenter really hasn't been active enough
>> in the last couple of years to be able to evaluate the
>> candidates" rather than vaguely suggest that he is isn't
>> suitable.

> Does bullet 3 in Section 2 need to say more than it does now
> on that topic?

Murray, I don't know if my concern aligns with Brian's or not,
but I would think that there needs to be some impediment to
secret challenges that are based on innuendo, especially so
because there has traditionally been no appeal model for
challenges (and you don't add one).  On the other hand,
encouraging public slander is not a good idea either.  Perhaps
the text in Section 2 might be improved by: (i) Making it a bit
more clear that, while less that the historical attendance level
is grounds for a challenge, the assumption is that anyone who
applies is qualified and that any challenge has to contain
sufficient information of substance to overcome that
assumptions.  I think that is your intent, but the text is a
little bit less clear and more discretionary.  (ii) Adding a
rule that, if someone is challenged and the Nomcom chair upholds
the challenge and disqualifies the Nomcom applicant, the
challenge and associated correspondence may be made public at
the request of the applicant.  Perhaps the risk of public
disclosure would be sufficient to reduce concerns about possible