RE: Proposal from mstjohns: Pre-approval of RFC 2727bis

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I was (and still am) a NoObj on this doc, so I will go along with a YES.
I think Ted's proposal makes it even better. The current most serious
issue to be addressed seems to be the potential that 3 companies will
get too many members on the NomCom, something that the nomcom WG
tried to fix because of last year (I hate to say) Lucent having 4
members on the nomcom. It also happened with Nortel having 3 a few
years back I believe. That was (in my persobal view) bad and would
be bad if it happens again.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hardie@qualcomm.com [mailto:hardie@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: donderdag 9 oktober 2003 0:30
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; iesg@ietf.org
> Cc: st.amour@isoc.org; fred@cisco.com
> Subject: Re: Proposal from mstjohns: Pre-approval of RFC 2727bis
> 
> 
> Would it be possible to say "follow the selection procedures 
> for nomcom volunteers
> as outlined in rfc2727bis" (since those are clear and 
> uncontentious), but leave
> the rest of it status quo ante?
> 
> Some of the other sections are under active DISCUSSion 
> (Thomas Narten's issue
> with the liaisons reporting back being the one that sticks in 
> my mind.)  I'm still
> a no-ob on this, and I'll go along with either way.  But if 
> there is a middle ground
> that gets us forward, maybe we should consider it.
> 				regards,
> 					Ted
> 
> At 11:54 PM +0200 10/08/2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >Mike St. Johns has suggested that the IESG should approve 
> the 2727bis document as-is, mostly, I think, in order to fix 
> the nomcom selection that will occur on October 10.
> >
> >I think there's good reason for that, but also want to get 
> the current issues with the document fixed before publication.
> >
> >I have an alternate suggestion - that the ISOC President 
> instruct the nomcom chair to follow the instructions of 
> 2727bis, accepting that some points will be clarified as part 
> of the ongoing process.
> >
> >If the IESG agrees on that, and the ISOC BoT and ISOC 
> President does not object, we can do it. But we have to 
> decide by tomorrow.
> >
> >What do people think?
> >
> >NOTE: If I hear one person among the IESG + ISOC BoT Chair + 
> ISOC President saying "NO, can't do", I dont' think we can do 
> it. I'd also like to have people say "YES".
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> >                Harald
> 
>