Subject: IESG Issue 17

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:10:28 -0400 (EDT)

> Questions;
> 
> Is this an editorial or content change?

it is a content change not an editorial change

> Is the change accepted?

if this is not done then what is the fallback if the committee does
not make the deadline?  (are all is nominations invalid?)

Scott

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:51:44 -0400 (EDT)

Speaking as editor:

Inserting the complete text from Avri for context:

  -----------------
  IESG Issue 17
  -----------------

  >
  >>        The confirmation process must be completed at least one month
  >>        prior to the First IETF.
  >
  > s/must/should/ other parts of the document imply should on this topic.

  Questions;

  Is the change accepted?

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:

    Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:10:28 -0400 (EDT)
    From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
    To: [email-masked]
    Subject: IESG Issue 17

I would consider this a content change.  The document consistently uses
"must" throughout, not "should", and this is intentional.  I recall
prior discussion from years past about being definite with respect to
the schedule and requirements.  We'd have to look through POISED
archives to find it.

In fact, there explicitly is no fallback if the deadline is not met.
This was discussed in years past and it was the choice made at that
time.  Again, we'd have to search the POISED archives to see this.

To a first approximation, the existence of the month between when the
NOMCOM is done and the staff turnover is effective is the fallback.
Essentially, the NOMCOM has a "grace period" of one month before it
absolutely, positively has to be done.

Jim