How about asking Heather for the appropriate term? Seems easier than guessing :-)
A > -----Original Message----- > From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 21 August 2012 20:45 > To: Barry Leiba > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have one discussion point and a number of small nits... > > > > ... > > > > There are just two points in your comments that I want to pursue: > > > >> 15.2. People serving in the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor > >> may not volunteer to serve as voting members of the > >> nominating committee. > >> > >> Slight problem with the term "RFC Editor" since this is a single person > >> and also a service function. I suspect you mean the latter. > > > > I do, and I actually had the same problem with it when I wrote it as > > you do. So help me, please: How *should* this be put? I don't like, > > "and those employed in the RFC Editor function," and I really can't > > think of a concise, clean, accurate way to write it down, though we > > all (today) know what it means. Text, please, someone. > > In particular, I believe the there are Editorial Boards that the > various fragments of the RFC Editor appoint and consult which should > not be excluded. > > Thanks, > Donald > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > [email protected] > > >> o In bullet 16, to correct an erratum, the last paragraph is > >> replaced by this: > >> > >> One possible selection method is described in RFC 3797 [1]. > >> > >> Perfectly correct, but I don't think this document is the place to > >> correct random errata. > > > > I was (and am) ambivalent here. I did not have this in my first > > version. SM did. When we merged the proposals, I thought it was a > > good idea to fix that. But you're right that it's rather off topic, > > and the right place to do that would be 3777bis, which this decidedly > > is NOT. > > > > I'm inclined to pull it out (having not checked that with SM yet, > > though). Does anyone (including SM) think it definitely needs to be > > in here? > > > > Barry
