Subject: Re: H2 or J

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:44:31 -0400 (EDT)

kre sez:
> 4 weeks would be the absolute minimum (last I heard,
> the IAB only meets once every month, for example), 6 or 8 weeks
> probably more realistic.

both the IAB and the ISOC board know how to use email and they
both know how to set up special phone calls

remember that making the approval time longer pushes back the date 
by which the nomcom has to get its job done - its hard enough as it is

Scott

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:10:06 +0700

Date:        Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:44:31 -0400 (EDT)
    From:        Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | both the IAB and the ISOC board know how to use email

When I was doing this, the IAB knew how to use e-mail, but deliberately
didn't for any (non generalities) discussions of confirmation
matters, that was all done over the phone (or once or twice, in person).

  | and they both know how to set up special phone calls

Again, at the time, maybe they did, but that never happened - scheduling
people's time is the hard part, not dialing the telephone.

  | remember that making the approval time longer pushes back the date 
  | by which the nomcom has to get its job done - its hard enough as it is

Yes, I know - I also remain convinced that a deadline (any reasonable
deadline) is the true driving force to much of this, allow an extra
3 or 4 weeks, and the discussions will expand to fill that time.

Do remember that if the confirming body has insufficient time its
only real choice (whether by default, or specifically) is to just
say "we reject all of those, today" and then expect the nominating
committee to submit the same names again later - with the conforming
body then having the extra time while waiting for the resubmit, and
the next required answer, to actually discuss the issue.    I don't
think that's the way we should be expecting things to work - avoiding
it means allowing enough time in the first place.

kre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:04:00 +0200

> by which the nomcom has to get its job done - its hard enough as it is

But this is *exactly* why we increased the time span of the whole
process.

My experience in both the IAB and the ISOC Board is that two weeks
is *not* enough time if there are any contentious cases. There just
isn't time to discuss, ask questions, and then take a formal poll.

Setting up an ad hoc conf call for either of them is challenging.
Calendars simply don't overlap with that many people to consider.
For the ISOC Board, you can't even assume daily email usage.

I much prefer to leave it as "reasonable", because in any case the
process sets an outside limit. Maybe it should say "reasonable time
within the limits set by the process timeline discussed in Section
<whatever>."

     Brian

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:46:17 +0200

> within the limits set by the process timeline discussed in Section

"within the limits set by the process timeline", if the timeline is clear, 
is an unambiguous time limit, and avoids repeating text.

We don't need to have "reasonable" if we have that.

               Harald

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:57:30 -0400

> people's time is the hard part, not dialing the telephone.

Recent instances of the IAB have held conference calls as needed,
including at least one specially scheduled in order to review
Nomcom-proposed candidates.

I don't see that 2 weeks creates a problem for the confirming body to
decide on each candidate proposed by Nomcom, based on my experience
of the past 4 years on the IAB.  I have no data on the ISoc situation,
but doubt it would be radically different.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:58:58 -0400

On Thursday, Jun 5, 2003, at 13:46 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand wrote:

> "within the limits set by the process timeline", if the timeline is 
> clear, is an unambiguous time limit, and avoids repeating text.
>

Either of those words (Brian's or Harald's) would
also be OK with me.

Ran