IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees
RFC 7437

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2014-11-25 for -03)
THANK YOU for doing this work, and particularly for keeping it to the compilation of changes rather than a shopping list of desirable tweaks :-)

Spencer Dawkins Yes

Comment (2014-11-24 for -03)
I only wish "Heck, yes" was a defined ballot position.

I've been reading through various versions of this draft since -00, and believe -03 does a good job of folding in post-RFC 3777 updates without introducing changes to the Nomcom process, as the author was asked to do. Thanks for doing it.

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

Comment (2014-11-22 for -03)
I think it is really helpful to have this compilation available for future NomComs and to act as a foundation for any changes we want to make. Thanks for making it.

Any time you want to spell my name right you can go right ahead and do it.

(Barry Leiba) Yes

(Ted Lemon) (was No Objection, Discuss) Yes

Comment (2014-11-25 for -03)
This is a real improvement over the existing state of the art.   I've dropped my previous discuss, which was the result of catching a nit in -02 that had already been fixed in -03.   Thanks!

(Kathleen Moriarty) Yes

Comment (2014-11-23 for -03)
The document updates are very helpful, thanks for your work on this draft.

My only comment is from personal experience, possibly for appendix C. It is not cut-and-dry timeline information, but rather more anecdotal information passed from experience (in the intent of the appendix, but this particular appendix is not written that way).  I believe last year's process ran a little late (I could be wrong), but in any case, the time line was tight to wrap up my work at EMC.  I had hoped to take a week off in between, but was not able to do that as the transition work began very quickly.  It might be good to ensure folks have time as you are often getting senior level candidates who lead big projects that have to be wrapped up and some time off in between could be very beneficial.  Perhaps a reminder of those considerations would be helpful.

(Pete Resnick) Yes

Comment (2014-11-24 for -03)
3.1 and throughout - Probably useful to use the "seven (7)" convention when using numbers.

(Benoit Claise) (was Yes) No Objection

Comment (2014-11-25 for -03)
I have not seen a reply to Bert Wijnen's point:
while reviewing I noticed this:

- section 2:

   sitting member:  A person who is currently serving a term of
      membership in the IESG, IAB, or ISOC Board of Trustees.

Are you sure it is an ISOC Board of Trustees member? Or did you mean
IAOC member. I think you did. The IETF NOMCOM has no say about
ISOC Trustees as far as I know.

Thanks for this work. Regards, Benoit

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) (was Discuss) Abstain

Comment (2014-11-25 for -03)
Abstaining because I don't really think that it's useful to publish "roll-up" documents like this.

Section 1.
"The meetings are referred to as the First IETF, Second IETF, or Third IETF as needed."
It would be helpful to clarify that these are First, Second, and Third "of the year".

Section 1.
"The time frames specified here use IETF meetings as a frame of reference."
I would like to not end up in a constitutional crisis if we decide to change the number or spacing of the meetings.  Can we clarify here that if the assumptions made about IETF meetings change, then ... it's up to the NOMCOM chair to adjust the schedule?