IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Revision of the Nominating and Recall Committees Timeline
draft-dawkins-nomcom-start-earlier-02

[Ballot comment]
The document does not mention that if you start early, then there's less experience with the current members of the IESG/IAB. In particular, if someone is on his or hers first 1 year-term, then starting in September means that the IETF community has experience from one IETF meeting with
this particular person (the summer meeting). So moving earlier is not
always only a positive thing, and perhaps the document could say
something about this. But I nevertheless fully support the document's
suggested timelines, which are IMHO a good balance between the different
pressures.

Nits:

s/random slection/random selection/
s/missed oppotunity/missed opportunity/

[Ballot comment]
run-on sentence:

Section 6:

" If a future normative revision to
  [RFC3777] allowed someone else - perhaps the ISOC President - to
  issue the call for volunteers, this could be issued while the NomCom
  chair is still being selected, and the new chair could begin work by
  announcing the date of random selection, instead of waiting for the
  volunteers to volunteer for 30 days.
"

In general there are too many "," (commas) in the doc for proper English. Needs another spin to pick nits. Just and example from Section 3:

"The NomCom volunteers don't have a chance to conduct interviews
      with the community, or with nominees, until the third IETF,
      during the height of the NomCom effort.  If the NomCom effort
      took place before the Third IETF, the NomCom could work on
      difficult nominations, and to meet with nominees under
      consideration, face to face."

[Ballot discuss]
This is a question on how this document should be marking RFC 3777. I would really have liked to have an "updated by" on RFC 3777 to point at this document, despite it only containing updates to non-normative parts of RFC 3777. Is there any way to accomplish this without making this a BCP also?

[Ballot comment]
Section 10., paragraph 5:
>    Note - Does the ISOC portion of the timeline exist in a referenceable
>    form?

  Has this been resolved?