Re: IESG issues with draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:14:28 +0200
    From:        Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
    Message-ID:  <123885858.1065546868@localhost>


  | -------------------------------------------------------------
  | >In section 2:
  | >      The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
  | >      to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of
  | >      qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each
  | >      position.
  | 
  | Is this information sent publicly or privately?

I'll just comment on this one for now ...

RFC2727 says:

      At a minimum, the nominating committee will be given the title of
      the position to be reviewed.  The nominating committee may be
      given a desirable set of qualifications for the candidate
      nominated to fill each position.

The replacement text is not substantially different.   2727 makes no
mention of whether or not that information is given publicly or privately.

Perhaps it should, perhaps this is something that doesn't need to be
stated.   There is nothing being changed here however.

One thing that is clear, is that if one were to desire that this be
made more precise, one way or the other, the correct procedure would
have been to bring it up to the working group when the document was
being considered.

It is totally unacceptable for IESG members, however well motivated,
to use their position on the IESG to force through changes to documents
that haven't been raised properly through the normal working group
procedures.

The truly stupid thing about this objection, is that if it were to cause
the IESG to reject the document, then the IETF will be left in exactly the
position that the objection complains about.

What should be done here, is to note this issue for the next time that
this document is to be revised, and if appropriate, fix it then.

kre

ps: if one were to decide that this document should be re-opened for new
issues, then all the stuff that got dropped before because of a desire
to get this done quickly, will reappear.   But, now that it seems that
the IESG delayed it long enough already that it is too late for this year's
nomcom, perhaps that is what should happen anyway.