re: proposal for random selection process for nominations

Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com> Tue, 01 December 1992 16:12 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04083; 1 Dec 92 11:12 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04074; 1 Dec 92 11:12 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11762; 1 Dec 92 11:13 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04069; 1 Dec 92 11:12 EST
Received: from babyoil.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11743; 1 Dec 92 11:12 EST
Received: by ftp.com id AA27236; Tue, 1 Dec 92 11:13:09 -0500
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1992 11:13:09 -0500
Message-Id: <9212011613.AA27236@ftp.com>
To: craig@aland.bbn.com
Subject: re: proposal for random selection process for nominations
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
Reply-To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: davin@bellcore.com, poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US

Craig,

David Brandin's note had some good "knob tweaking" about this issue
(specifically, do not allow IESG/IAB members to be on the W.G.s). The
IAB/IESG presumably are "enfranschised" as a body by their special
representatives. Individuals on the IAB and IESG can always submit
information to the Nominating and Recall WGs via email, as anyone
else can (I hope!)  While this may or may not be a good thing, it
would solve this particular problem.


 > resulting slate will occasionally look suspicious to some parties.  For
 > example, what do you think the probability is if all the IAB and IESGers
 > volunteer to serve on the nominations committee, that the nominations
 > committee of 7 will have 3 or more IAB/IESG members on it (an effective
 > majority)?

--
Frank Kastenholz