Subject: Re: SUMMARY: archiving of NOMCOM information

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:47:09 -0500

--On Friday, 29 March, 2002 10:58 -0500 James M Galvin
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> SPEAKING AS EDITOR:
> 
> A number of good questions have been asked about this
> practice.  I think the most important question is:
>...
 
> I believe there is agreement on point 2 above.  With that in
> mind and incorporating other discussion regarding controlling
> access to the "archived data" I would propose the following:
> 
>     PROPOSED CONSENSUS: The NOMCOM Chair and one or more
> NOMCOM voting     members should maintain an archive of the
> information and     deliberations of the NOMCOM for their term
> of service.  The archive     can be used if the NOMCOM is
> called upon to fill a mid-term vacancy.     At the end of the
> term of service all information is to be     destroyed.
> 
> If you disagree with the PROPOSED CONSENSUS please reply to
> the list. If you agree do nothing.  Note that a future message
> will propose actual and specific textual changes to the
> document.

Jim,

I think this is wrong.  If we need those records, the last thing
we need is a potential argument over who has the authoritative
copy.  Even ignoring the legal niceties (if they exist), it
seems to me to be better to have a copy that is presumed to be
authoritative, for which someone has the job responsibility for
retention, backup, etc.   That feels to me like a professional
role/responsibiity, not a volunteer one, and certainly not an
extra burden to be dropped on the chair if there is a plausible
alternative.  Hand off to the secretariat or to ISOC (I'm
indifferent as to which, although the office of the ISOC
President, given the appointing role for the Nomcom Chair, has
some logic to it), seems like the obvious answer.

If people are concerned about ISOC or the Secretariat mucking
around in the files --I tend to trust their discretion, but can
respect others feeling paranoid about this-- or about their
systems being compromised, then I think we should look at some
variation on Ted's split-key suggestion.  It is pretty easy
technology for us at this point.

     john