Re: [Ltru] Resolving issues

I was actually just quoting Martin in my message. The language Addison and I
originally suggested was:

The IESG will solicit nominees for the position (upon adoption of this
document or upon a vacancy) and then solicit feedback on the nominees'
qualifications.

Qualified candidates should be familiar with BCP 47 and its requirements; be
willing to fairly, responsively, and judiciously administer the registration
process; and be suitably informed about the issues of language
identification so that they can draw upon and assess the claim and
contributions of language experts and subtag requesters.

Mark

On 7/9/07, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Mark Davis wrote on 7/1/07 17:32 -0700:
> > I think one big issue that isn't dealt with here is that the appointment
> > is for an infinite term. I think it would be much better to have a
> > limited term (e.g. two years), with a possibility for renewal.
> > This gives a good chance for reviewing from both sides (both the
> > reviewer as well as the IESG).
>
> Having to review _every_ expert reviewer every two years would be a
> significant
> time commitment for the IESG (there are a _lot_ of expert reviewers --
> 100+).
> I'd rather apply the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" principle to
> expert
> reviewers as that's more scalable.  If the community has problems with an
> expert reviewer, please express those concerns directly to the expert
> reviewer
> and if that doesn't satisfy, contact an appropriate area director or the
> IESG.
>
>                 - Chris
>
>

-- 
Mark