Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 09 January 2015 00:40 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D41E1A6FEC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 16:40:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fl060NLy14YK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 16:40:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95FC1A00E6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 16:40:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id n12so5511256wgh.6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 16:40:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2XPy/tAFOy0AtrUTPp9HAzyMt+9Mpkke90JKJHmXUXA=; b=GiddvkAsR+OgmLlgkh9/EkJY0i9cQgOYpy37nk0KiOCdqOiKruvHaRLDdP9kHCAYzu PXeaudrr8YxcBiIzfWIdwmdqE7FmQmEmbQprrgnrLoZDOHzUNnnoCYeVbvSQxeGDQFe6 wIwnUo/GpVHqttct2BRYI6vkpolSTWx893Q7rsr/poqUoGvnD++zBJhV95ewUsVv73B5 dbkE0BN1Jb1TeMPI67MKcjG2HdgPU/kKowJZTmkUCoFIAi0426hSbuh3/dQR6z/S6PhX px52hc7kkhQR4ZIv/6FE/goakfg+Qa3DoMlAJ9HkY9natBXC2Hm0a+Kcam5caY8arr8v 4sDg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.62.76 with SMTP id w12mr26146082wjr.5.1420764023621; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 16:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.204.198 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 16:40:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54AF2288.7030200@gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <D54C3DE17A3E5C7B032F6FB4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <BC1A05C1-6198-4325-8F46-8E5AB9D0DFCF@cs.georgetown.edu> <20038FAABC32083290783A97@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <F3782236-1AF7-4F9C-8A15-2F9CC8BC8795@cs.georgetown.edu> <54AED784.2070402@gmail.com> <246EBEB9-EA10-4E55-BD94-0161BBEF92E7@vigilsec.com> <7414012C-01C2-4139-98DB-16C6FB52F9DF@gmail.com> <54AF2288.7030200@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 16:40:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZe0RSygWMdFchEx2rk735huz=n1bmgQ6QhO2OQiMUW3w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba977a4f00d42050c2d6687
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sp3CMeAVjI23-jq0qj6WMmlIYI4>
Cc: Klensin John <john-ietf@jck.com>, Eric Burger <eburger@cs.georgetown.edu>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 09 Jan 2015 00:40:32 -0000

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:

>
> That's all good. However, I think the Nomcom (Chair) needs some guidance,
> even if it's a very general statement that the liaisons should have
> sufficient access to Nomcom materials and discussions so as to execute
> all their duties under http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-4.7 .
>
> After all, the only restriction placed on liaisons is a single line:
> "Liaisons do not vote on the selection of candidates."
>

Does one of you some text changes in mind covering this issue, or shall I
take a run at it?

-MSK