IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Selection Process

Carl Malamud <carl@malamud.com> Wed, 25 November 1992 12:45 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02568; 25 Nov 92 7:45 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02557; 25 Nov 92 7:45 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06797; 25 Nov 92 7:46 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02551; 25 Nov 92 7:45 EST
Received: from trystero.malamud.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06792; 25 Nov 92 7:46 EST
Received: by malamud.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05627; Wed, 25 Nov 92 07:52:12 EST
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 07:52:12 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Carl Malamud <carl@malamud.com>
Message-Id: <9211251252.AA05627@malamud.com>
To: Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr, carl@malamud.com
Subject: Re: Selection Process
Cc: poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US

Christian -

I have no disagreement on the fact that nomination committee (and
recall committee) proceedings should be deemed confidential and that
members of the committees should be willing to sign an agreement.

I'm a little less clear on having 2 IAB and 2 IESG act as liaisons.  I
raised this point several times and the initial reaction I got from
several people was that 4 "old boys" could unduly influence the
committee.

Anybody else have any comments on these points?

Carl

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status