Subject: Nomcom 2007-8: Nominations Close on Sep 10, 2007

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:52:33 -0700

WGchairs, IESG and IAB members

Please forward this request to the lists you manage and request feedback 
and nominations.

All,

Here is the link to nominate: 
https://tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nominate

You may also send nominations or comments via email to [email-masked] 
or [email-masked].

We have received very few nominations (1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 8, 8, 19) and 
even fewer accepted (1-2 people in each area, IAB acceptances is 4 at 
last count).

I request the community to provide feedback on the incumbents (send 
email or send notes via the web page).

1) If you think that the incumbent is doing a good job
     a) provide feedback AND
     b) nominate similar people just in case there is strong negative 
feedback on the incumbent

2) If you think the incumbent can do somethings better
    a) provide feedback AND
    b) nominate someone who you think might do better

Candidates, if time commitment is the only issue, please indicate that 
to the nomcom and accept the nominations.

thanks,
Lakshminath

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 05:02:41 +0800

Just sampling the WGchairs mailing list, how many nominees for IESG 
positions do we NEED this cycle?

I had mentioned this privately to Lakshminath in a hypothetical discussion, 
but it's probably worth mentioning to a broader audience.

And please note - I am not talking about IAB positions, which I haven't 
spent very much time thinking about at all.

(What I sent privately)

Just doing the math, we have two ADs who have served in the same position
for more than one term (Sam Hartman and Mark Townsley), and two more who
have served for more than one term, but who have moved within the past two
NomComs (Russ Housley and Jon Peterson).

In this NomCom cycle, we're looking at

Lisa Dusseault -- Applications Area Director (since 2006)
Jari Arkko -- Internet Area Director (since 2006)
Dan Romascanu -- Operations and Management Area Director (since 2006)
Cullen Jennings -- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Director
(since 2006)
Ross Callon --- Routing Area Director (since 2006)
Sam Hartman -- Security Area Director (since 2005)
Magnus Westerlund -- Transport Area Director (since 2006)

I'm not sure who on this list has looked at
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-01.txt
(disclaimer, I joined as co-author on version 01), but this draft included
as one of the asserted principles of IESG selection:

   o  It takes long enough to learn the job of being an effective AD
      that, in general, having someone retire after a single two-year
      term is uneconomic for the community.

I'm wondering if the community is agreeing with this point of view with 
their feet, whether we agreed on a draft that says so or not.

Spencer

p.s. Please check my math at http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html#2005 and
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ann/nomcom/1234/, of course ...

p.p.s. Don't worry, the draft still allowed NomComs to "fire" ADs where
there "is strong evidence of problems (e.g., incompetence, inability to work
with WGs, inability to work with other ADs, non-feasance, or malfeasance)" -
saying "but I'm new here" doesn't cover ALL failings ...

p.p.p.s. (An addition to my earlier note: if we're happy with our new ADs, 
or at least not SO unhappy that we seriously want to replace our new ADs, 
why would we encourage someone, no matter how qualified, to be considered as 
a replacement now? They have mostly been trained, this is their most 
productive time, and we would be starting over with a new guy/gal)

(Yes, sending feedback is GREAT, and if the NomCom gets feedback that says 
Marvin has only been in the position two years, but Marvin is totally 
hopeless and people will initiate recall actions if NomCom doesn't remove 
him, that's a different problem. But it would be really nice to separate

o "incumbent is willing, able, and competent to continue to serve, and 
should continue to serve for a second term" from

o "we have a vacancy, whether the incumbent was unwilling, unable, or 
incompetent, so please nominate the best people you can find because we WILL 
be nominating a different candidate - the learning curve is the lesser of 
two evils!")

(Or so I thought. If you STRONGLY disagree, the best way to respond is by 
sending nominations for the AD positions to NomCom this weekend, of course, 
because Russ doesn't read the WGchairs mailing list to figure out whether 
I'm an idiot)

> even fewer accepted (1-2 people in each area, IAB acceptances is 4 at last 
> count).
>
> I request the community to provide feedback on the incumbents (send email 
> or send notes via the web page).
>
> Candidates, if time commitment is the only issue, please indicate that to 
> the nomcom and accept the nominations.
>
> thanks,
> Lakshminath
>
>

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:39:17 -0700

Oh well, here we go!

There are a number of theories as to why we do not have a reasonable 
number of candidates this year.  One of them is your theory Spencer. 
Another one may be time commitment issues and yet another may be apathy 
in the whole process.  One of the things nomcoms might do is to provide 
input to the incumbents on trouble spots even when returning them for 
another term.

So while we discuss this, I request everyone to please nominate 
candidates and/or provide input on incumbents.

Consider the following scenario to see why:

Thinking that the incumbent is doing a good job and thinking that is the 
consensus, people provide no input to nomcom.  The nomcom gets one more 
nomination in addition to the incumbent's.  Not all the people who think 
the incumbent is doing a good job receive the request for feedback. 
People who want to complain about the incumbent complain away using all 
avenues (initial feedback and solicited feedback) and the other person 
gets appointed even if that may not necessarily be the community's 
consensus.

Moral of the story: If you think that the incumbent is doing a good job, 
please provide that feedback to the nomcom and nominate similar folks 
just in case.

If we need to increase term limits, let's do it.  Perhaps we can also 
instantiate the nomcom process every other year and save everybody's time.

best,
Lakshminath

On 9/7/2007 2:02 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I had mentioned this privately to Lakshminath in a hypothetical 
> discussion, but it's probably worth mentioning to a broader audience.
> 
> p.p.p.s. (An addition to my earlier note: if we're happy with our new 
> ADs, or at least not SO unhappy that we seriously want to replace our 
> new ADs, why would we encourage someone, no matter how qualified, to be 
> considered as a replacement now? They have mostly been trained, this is 
> their most productive time, and we would be starting over with a new 
> guy/gal)
> 
> (Yes, sending feedback is GREAT, and if the NomCom gets feedback that 
> says Marvin has only been in the position two years, but Marvin is 
> totally hopeless and people will initiate recall actions if NomCom 
> doesn't remove him, that's a different problem. But it would be really 
> nice to separate
> 
> incompetent, so please nominate the best people you can find because we 
> WILL be nominating a different candidate - the learning curve is the 
> lesser of two evils!")
> 
> (Or so I thought. If you STRONGLY disagree, the best way to respond is 
> by sending nominations for the AD positions to NomCom this weekend, of 
> course, because Russ doesn't read the WGchairs mailing list to figure 
> out whether I'm an idiot)
> 
> 
>> Please forward this request to the lists you manage and request 
>> feedback and nominations.
>>
>> All,
>>
>> You may also send nominations or comments via email to 
>> [email-masked] or [email-masked].
>>

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:43:19 -0700

I couldn't disagree more.  We don't need a functional Nomcom every year
if it was just an automatic conclusion that the real term for an AD is 4
years, not 2.  In fact, the Nomcom can be formed on an as-needed basis,
going by your take.  I'm sure the Nomcom volunteers will be happy to
save the time spent on it, if they don't have to.  

It doesn't matter if you, as an individual, think that a given AD is
doing great! If you think there are others who could the job well, you
should give Nomcom the choice of picking from the pool, just in case
some other parts of the community happened to feel the incumbent needs
replacement.  Your opinion doesn't necessarily reflect the community's
opinion on the incumbent or on what is required from a candidate on the
IESG. 

It would be nice if everyone remembers that their opinion is just "one"
piece of input that the Nomcom is working with.  Having been on the
Nomcom last year, I can see how it can feel helpless when the collective
community input points to replacing an incumbent, but, the Nomcom is
left with no candidates.  And, given that we don't know who is going to
accept the nomination and who isn't, we should not feel shy about
nominations at all.  Quite the contrary in my view - if you think
someone is going to be an effective AD, please nominate them; you can
provide your input that you think the incumbent is doing a fantastic job
and doesn't need replacement; doesn't mean you stop nominating more
people. 

Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:03 PM
> To: [email-masked]; IESG IESG
> Subject: Re: Nomcom 2007-8: Nominations Close on Sep 10, 2007
> 
> Just sampling the WGchairs mailing list, how many nominees 
> for IESG positions do we NEED this cycle?
> 
> I had mentioned this privately to Lakshminath in a 
> hypothetical discussion, but it's probably worth mentioning 
> to a broader audience.
> 
> And please note - I am not talking about IAB positions, which 
> I haven't spent very much time thinking about at all.
> 
> (What I sent privately)
> 
> Just doing the math, we have two ADs who have served in the 
> same position for more than one term (Sam Hartman and Mark 
> Townsley), and two more who have served for more than one 
> term, but who have moved within the past two NomComs (Russ 
> Housley and Jon Peterson).
> 
> Jari Arkko -- Internet Area Director (since 2006) Dan 
> Romascanu -- Operations and Management Area Director (since 
> 2006) Cullen Jennings -- Real-time Applications and 
> Infrastructure Area Director (since 2006) Ross Callon --- 
> Routing Area Director (since 2006) Sam Hartman -- Security 
> Area Director (since 2005) Magnus Westerlund -- Transport 
> Area Director (since 2006)
> 
> (disclaimer, I joined as co-author on version 01), but this 
> draft included as one of the asserted principles of IESG selection:
> 
> I'm wondering if the community is agreeing with this point of 
> view with their feet, whether we agreed on a draft that says 
> so or not.
> 
> Spencer
> 
> p.s. Please check my math at 
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html#2005 and 
> p.p.s. Don't worry, the draft still allowed NomComs to "fire" 
> ADs where there "is strong evidence of problems (e.g., 
> incompetence, inability to work with WGs, inability to work 
> with other ADs, non-feasance, or malfeasance)" - saying "but 
> I'm new here" doesn't cover ALL failings ...
> 
> p.p.p.s. (An addition to my earlier note: if we're happy with 
> our new ADs, or at least not SO unhappy that we seriously 
> want to replace our new ADs, why would we encourage someone, 
> no matter how qualified, to be considered as a replacement 
> now? They have mostly been trained, this is their most 
> (Yes, sending feedback is GREAT, and if the NomCom gets 
> feedback that says Marvin has only been in the position two 
> years, but Marvin is totally hopeless and people will 
> initiate recall actions if NomCom doesn't remove him, that's 
> a different problem. But it would be really nice to separate
> 
> o "incumbent is willing, able, and competent to continue to 
> serve, and should continue to serve for a second term" from
> 
> o "we have a vacancy, whether the incumbent was unwilling, 
> unable, or incompetent, so please nominate the best people 
> you can find because we WILL be nominating a different 
> candidate - the learning curve is the lesser of two evils!")
> 
> (Or so I thought. If you STRONGLY disagree, the best way to 
> respond is by sending nominations for the AD positions to 
> NomCom this weekend, of course, because Russ doesn't read the 
> WGchairs mailing list to figure out whether I'm an idiot)
> 
>

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:57:14 -0500

On 9/8/07 at 5:02 AM +0800, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

>If you STRONGLY disagree...

Spencer, I'm going to strongly, and publicly, disagree with you about 
this message. And this has nothing to do with my personal feelings 
about the current incumbents. It just so happens that I *do* agree 
with the suggestion that, barring reasons not to, ADs should be 
allowed to serve more than one term given how long it takes to come 

>positions do we NEED this cycle?

I think comments like the above have a chilling effect on people 
being willing to send negative comments about incumbents, and also 
have a chilling effect on getting people to nominate or be nominated.

Giving negative feedback is sometimes hard for people to do: You 
don't want to insult folks who may be friends, but may be incompetent 
in their position. Similarly, having people volunteer is equally hard 
for some folks because it looks like you might be saying you consider 
the incumbent (also perhaps a friend) incompetent. Having someone 
like you, who is among us old crusty folks in the IETF, say that we 
don't NEED nominees is implicitly saying that we, among the old 
crusty folks, think that nobody should challenge the current ADs.

I think it's actually harmful for you to make these kinds of comments publicly.

>p.p.p.s. (An addition to my earlier note: if we're happy with our 
>new ADs, or at least not SO unhappy that we seriously want to 
>replace our new ADs, why would we encourage someone, no matter how 
>qualified, to be considered as a replacement now? They have mostly 
>been trained, this is their most productive time, and we would be 
>starting over with a new guy/gal)

The nomcom should consider all of the information about incumbents. 
If *every* piece of information the nomcom gets is that an AD makes 
folks "mildly unhappy" and there is no positive feedback, I'd expect 
that nomcom to seriously look into why that is and whether they 
believe that the problem is likely to go away in the next term.

>(Yes, sending feedback is GREAT, and if the NomCom gets feedback 
>that says Marvin has only been in the position two years, but Marvin 
>is totally hopeless and people will initiate recall actions if 
>NomCom doesn't remove him, that's a different problem. But it would 
>be really nice to separate
>
>o "incumbent is willing, able, and competent to continue to serve, 
>and should continue to serve for a second term" from
>
>o "we have a vacancy, whether the incumbent was unwilling, unable, 
>or incompetent, so please nominate the best people you can find 
>because we WILL be nominating a different candidate - the learning 
>curve is the lesser of two evils!")

But the problem here is that the nomcom is unable to figure out that 
Marvin is a problem until they start getting feedback. And given the 
procrastination abilities of folks in this organization, it's not 
time effective to collect all of the feedback on Marvin, find out 
he's a bozo, and then start asking people to volunteer. And do we 
really want *that* to happen anyway, so when the call for volunteers 
goes out, we (and Marvin) now know that the community has conveyed to 
the nomcom that he *is* a bozo?

Please, if you are willing to volunteer, or have someone in mind who 
would make a good candidate, send in the names. Even if you think 
that the current AD is perfectly fine, it may turn out that you're 
the only one who thinks that. Nominate someone who you would want as 
AD, just in case the incumbent is removed over your objections.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:00:54 -0500

On 9/7/07 at 2:39 PM -0700, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
On 9/7/07 at 2:43 PM -0700, Vidya Narayanan wrote:
On 9/7/07 at 4:57 PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:

OK, I swear. This is not a QUALCOMM conspiracy. If it was, we would 
have talked to eachother first and not sent messages within 10 
minutes of eachother. :-)

pr

---

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:13:15 -0400

>       term is uneconomic for the community.

The ADs whose terms are up have not publicly stated whether they are
willing to serve another term.  Even if you are happy with an incumbent
AD, the Nomcom needs additional candidates, because the incumbent may
not be willing to serve another term.

Regards,
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steven Blake                <[email-masked]>
Ericsson/Redback Networks               +1 919-472-9913

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:24:09 -0700

On Sep 7, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> Please, if you are willing to volunteer, or have someone in mind  
> who would make a good candidate, send in the names. Even if you  
> think that the current AD is perfectly fine, it may turn out that  
> you're the only one who thinks that.

Let me put a point on that. I will do so by pointing out something  
that was nomcom-confidential at one point but is now pretty obvious.

Last year, the nomcom had an excellent incumbent AD that we had  
people throughout his area saying "I don't care what you do as long  
as he remains the AD". The nomcom liked and respected him as well -  
enough to ask him to take on a much larger role in the IETF. I am  
(obviously) talking about Russ Housley.

Because nobody thought he was a problem as a security AD, coming up  
with a comfortably large set of names to make a real honest choice  
among was a problem. Because of the confidentiality requirements, we  
couldn't say "but you don't understand, we really like him too and we  
really need candidates anyway".

Please. Don't presuppose what the nomcom is looking at. If your  
opinion is that nothing should change, say that to the nomcom (I  
won't say whether we have seen such a statement from you or not; it  
is confidential). But don't presume that you know what others are  
saying to the nomcom, or what else it might be wrestling with. You  
don't know, and as the process is designed you're not supposed to know.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:01:51 -0700

Another related point: do not presume that the incumbent wants to 
re-up just because they haven't said in public that they aren't 
resigning.

Some ADs get burnt out after the nominations period closes.

Some ADs management say to them "OK, enough" a few months after the 
AD got an approval to continue.

Some ADs management / departments / owners change out from under them.

Some ADs try to game the system by not saying publicly that they are 
not re-upping to limit the nominees for "their" slot.

Some ADs decide late they would really rather try to be on the IAB / 
IAOC / ISOC board.

Some ADs ...

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:03:40 -0400

> really need candidates anyway".

--> This ³confidentiality requirement² applied blindly may actually hurting
us more than it helps in cases like this one.
      The community would have benefited to know that the nomcom was really
looking at someone in that area.

      It might be time to revisit the trade-off here.

        - Alain.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:29:03 -0400

Spencer, while I respect where you're trying to come from, I have to
disagree for many of the same reasons as those who have already
spoken.

Please, folks, give the nomcom a list of qualified candidates.  There
are way too many problems that get caused when the nomcom does not
have realistic choices and wants to replace someone.

Right now, I'm going through the list of WG chairs and other highly
active people in the security area nominatingthose I think would do a
good job  for sec ad and IAB as appropriate.

If the nomcom returns an AD it should be because they thought that
person is doing a good job not because they feel constrained.

I also strongly urge people here to accept nominations if they are
able to do so.  If the thing preventing you from accepting a
nomination is that there is insufficient time/funding then please
point that out.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:41:02 +0100

Alain Durand wrote:
> --> This “confidentiality requirement” applied blindly may actually 
> hurting us more than it helps in cases like this one.
> The community would have benefited to know that the nomcom was 
> *really* looking at someone in that area.
>
Another solution would have been be to have selected and announced the 
IESG chair first.

Stewart

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:02:27 +0100

Lakshminath

There are a number of obvious reasons why nominations are down this 
year. Firstly I understand that you decided not to take nominations at 
the I* interviews. In past years this was a major source of viable 
candidates, and in my view a lost opportunity.

Secondly, the timing makes it less likely that those I* members not 
re-upping will declare that, and yet this is a major cause of members of 
the IETF  giving serious consideration who they want in the job.

Thirdly, the timing was right (ie wrong) in the summer vacation season. 
So folks will have received the notice just as they were preparing to go 
on vacation, whilst they were away, or just as they got back. In the 
first and last case there was often far more pressing tasks, and the 
second and third case the Nomcom mails are in the midst of an 
overwhelming backlog.

Fourthly the preferred method of taking input seemed to be  the web form 
which was set up to take names and input. I found this just too much to 
be bothered with given the pressing other demands on my time when I 
looked at it (i.e when I found the Nomcom request, and went there with 
the xK outstanding emails that had arrived during PTO).

Stewart

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 05:56:02 -0700

On Sep 9, 2007, at 1:02 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> year. Firstly I understand that you decided not to take nominations  
> at the I* interviews. In past years this was a major source of  
> viable candidates, and in my view a lost opportunity.
>
> re-upping will declare that, and yet this is a major cause of  
> members of the IETF  giving serious consideration who they want in  
> the job.
>
> Thirdly, the timing was right (ie wrong) in the summer vacation  
> season. So folks will have received the notice just as they were  
> preparing to go on vacation, whilst they were away, or just as they  
> got back. In the first and last case there was often far more  
> pressing tasks, and the second and third case the Nomcom mails are  
> in the midst of an overwhelming backlog.
>
> Fourthly the preferred method of taking input seemed to be  the web  
> form which was set up to take names and input. I found this just  
> too much to be bothered with given the pressing other demands on my  
> time when I looked at it (i.e when I found the Nomcom request, and  
> went there with the xK outstanding emails that had arrived during  
> PTO).
>
> Stewart

Catching up email after being mostly offline for 2 weeks: I too  
believe the above reasons had an effect on the candidate pool (maybe  
not the last one: there is an email address for nominations).  The  
3rd reason might be the biggest one (i.e. making Aug 10-Sep 10 as the  
nomination period; I wont make back to office by Sept 10th myself), I  
wish I had noticed it earlier.

Lixia

---

From: "Dondeti, Lakshminath" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 11:19:03 -0700

Hi Stewart,

Many thanks for your input.  The nomcom recognizes some of the possible areas of improvement and we will pass on the information to the next nomcom.  I had considered some dependencies w.r.t. taking nominations at Chicago, viz., getting the tools site ready before we send the call for nominations (and related dependencies) which in retrospect may not have been as important.  There was also the dependency of receiving the desired qualifications from the IESG, IAB and IAOC.

I realize that the tools forms may not be convenient to everyone, but it makes our job easier.  We have always allowed email input and will continue to do so (note: I put in all the nominations received via email into the tool.  It is a lot of work, but it makes the overall job easier for the nomcom).

The incumbents may not necessarily be announcing whether they are reupping, so the community should not be relying on that.  Fred made some excellent points about this in his email.

regards,
Lakshminath

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sun 9/9/2007 1:02 AM
To: Dondeti, Lakshminath
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom 2007-8: Nominations Close on Sep 10, 2007
 
Lakshminath

Stewart

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:46:00 +0300

Last Sec AD selection was an interesting case. Lack
of knowledge of what was going on caused people to
not sign up for the task. This kind of an situation can be
corrected in two ways... ask people to sign up anyway,
because we don't know what the Nomcom decides to
do or needs to do. Or, provide more information.

I think we actually need to do both. We need to have
the attitude that there should be enough pool for
the Nomcom to choose from. Vidya and others
already described why. But like Alain, I am also
convinced that it is time to revisit the question of
the confidentiality of (accepted) candidate lists.
I understand very well the reasons that speak
for keeping the information confidential, but I
think the trade-offs are worth opening up the
information. Being able to provide better feedback
to nomcom, etc. Besides, since when has information
distributed to hundreds or thousands of people
(via nomcom feedback requests) been much of a
secret...

Also, +1 to Stewart's list of reasons for lack of
nominations.

Jari

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:51:32 -0400

> (via nomcom feedback requests) been much of a

It seems to me that we have this discussion about once a year.  So far, no 
one has managed to build consensus behind a document making such a change. 
Perhaps we don't need to revisit it quite so often.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:31:00 +0400

On Sep 9, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> Another solution would have been be to have selected and announced  
> the IESG chair first.

The nomcom is not allowed to do anything "first".

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:21:05 +0300

Jeffrey,

> It seems to me that we have this discussion about once a year.  So
> far, no one has managed to build consensus behind a document making
> such a change. Perhaps we don't need to revisit it quite so often.

Point taken :-) but as I recall we never had a serious proposal
on the table. I'll either stop whining or write a document
and see once and for all whether there is a consensus
behind a change.

Jari

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:55:16 -0700

The NOMCON is not allowed to announce early. But it is not required to structure its communications so as to prevent observers making deductions cncerning its internal state.

________________________________

From: Fred Baker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 11/09/2007 6:31 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom 2007-8: Nominations Close on Sep 10, 2007

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:57:43 -0400

Under the current rules this is true.  However, I think that Stewart 
is suggesting a change.

Russ