Re: v 1.2, IETF material

Einar Stefferud <Stef=poised@nma.com> Sat, 05 December 1992 02:12 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15655; 4 Dec 92 21:12 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15646; 4 Dec 92 21:12 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25044; 4 Dec 92 21:13 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15641; 4 Dec 92 21:12 EST
Received: from ics.uci.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25034; 4 Dec 92 21:12 EST
Received: from nma.com by q2.ics.uci.edu id aa00173; 4 Dec 92 18:10 PST
Received: from localhost by odin.nma.com id aa27533; 4 Dec 92 16:32 PST
To: dee@skidrow.ljo.dec.com
cc: poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: v 1.2, IETF material
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 04 Dec 1992 14:05:22 -0500. <9212041905.AA05466@skidrow.ljo.dec.com>
Reply-to: Stef=poised@nma.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Einar Stefferud <Stef=poised@nma.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1992 16:32:39 -0800
Message-ID: <27531.723515559@nma.com>
X-Orig-Sender: stef@nma.com

I suggest that we last call for consensus assessment!  We are
obviously getting down to the bottom of the list of things to discuss!

}How come IAB terms are 2 instead of 3 years as I though was being
}talked about?

3 years in this business is a whole generation, so 3 years is like a
lifetime appointment;-) 2 years is long enough.  4 years is forever.

}It seems kind of embarrassing to me if the nominations committee had
}to nominate someone who sat in on all its sessions.

Simple.  Nominees must be excused from all deliberations of their own
nomination if they happen to sit on the committee.  Why exclude
someone from the nomination commitee just because they might become a
candidate.

}At most, something saying "The nominating committee shall recommend
}at least one name for each position." should do and probably could be
}combined into 2.4.

I think that word smithing this thing with intent to boil it down to
the smallest possible, no-redundant text is a bad idea.  This document
is for human consumption, not a computer programming system.  Some
redundancy is good for the human soul.

Also, lets not spend a lot of time grinding our tedium too fine.
	"And how do you wish your tedium sir?  Rare or Medium?"


}I don't see any use in section 3.1.  Why not just delete it as its covered
}in 3.2 and 3.3?

Why do you care?

}If all names can be rejected, shouldn't it be said what happens?  Is
}there a new nominating committee or does the body with the vacancy
}just fill it until the next regular selection term rolls around?

Obviously there has to be a new nomination slate...

}Just to make it clear what is going on, I would add "to introduce
}themselves" after the word "talk" in 3.4.

What if they feel they need no "introduction?"  

}Actually, I think calling on an Ombudsman appointed by the trustees to
}intervene should always require a cohesive statement in writing as to
}what the problem is so perhaps a similar provision should be inserted
}in 4.2 which would eliminate a need for it here.

I am in favor of not binding the hands of the Ombudsman so she can
work informally to head off problems before they become formal and in
writing, which then requires formal and in writing responses, and lo,
pretty soon we are in litigation and adversary mode.  Yuck!

}Despite the extent of my comments above, I think this is a excellent
}piece of work.

I sure wish you had said this in the beginning!  I might not have
prepared this response;-).  But I did, so I think you deserve to see
it.  I sure hope we don't have a lot more people who want to do this.

Have we come to consesus yet?  I sure hope so!

Cheers...\Stef