+
At 14:10 -0800 24/01/02, Ed Gerck wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
There have now been multiple postings that explained how reality was
substantially different than you have been claiming.
As a consequence, actual history does not support your
I just wanted to call your attention to the recently announced proposed
revision:
Title : IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
Comittees
Filename:
At 10:34 AM 1/25/2002 -0500, James M Galvin wrote:
I just wanted to call your attention to the recently announced proposed
revision:
Perhaps the best time for pursuing revisions to this document is
immediately after the nomcom has done it job. That way you will have a
pool of very fresh
At 8:50 AM -0800 1/25/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 10:34 AM 1/25/2002 -0500, James M Galvin wrote:
I just wanted to call your attention to the recently announced proposed
revision:
Perhaps the best time for pursuing revisions to this document is
immediately after the nomcom has done it job. That
James,
I'm going to differ with my learned colleges Dave and Paul. There may be
points of 2727 and draft 2727bis that have the potential to benefit from
deference until the current nomcom has done its job, but from my reading
not all of them fall into that bin. In particular, I don't see how
Two things in response to the issue of waiting to deal with the revised
NOMCOM document.
First, as a practical matter, I'm not inclined to believe there's a
significant issue. If the timetable as specified in RFC2727 is
completed on schedule, the NOMCOM will be done in less than 3 weeks.
Even
