Greetings from Tibor. Please find, enclosed, the final version of the report from the nominating committee. I'm afraid it was finalized in haste. I was informed last night, that the report needed to be sent today, in time for a Monday meeting. This means that I did not give everyone who deserved it, the time to respond. In particular, my apologies to Corwyn, and an explanation. He sent me his notes for some significant updates last night, which I received this morning. I have done my best to integrate his feedback into the document: but he has not had time to review my changes, to see if they match his requirements. This may lead to his needing to distribute an addendum or rebuttal: the fault for that is entirely mine, if so. There are two points of contention that I feel I may not have addressed properly. One is that Carol and I are in agreement in urging the Board to accept the list of nominees as we have presented them. To quote Corwyn from one of his comments on the text: "Again with the whole slate issue. The Board need line item veto, they've excersised it in the past, and insisting on a "whole slate" vote will, in my opinion, just get it shot down." It is not perfectly clear to me what his desire is in this regard. To that end, since Caroline and I both feel the slate should be accepted as written, I have changed the language from " We unanimously recommend that you accept the candidates as written." to remove references to unanimity. The other point of contention is, well, a point of contention. There was a point very late in the process, where I suddenly changed my decision on whether we ought to nominate a complete slate of 20 candidates, and decided that we really must. Unfortunately, this was communicated on the eve of my departure on a one week vacation, and may have been an inappropriate way to handle the situation. In any case, I had essentially filibustered. Corwyn was so gracious about this, that I did not realize we differed on it as much as we do. Since I do not have the luxury of time to investigate this, I chose to delete the paragraph that referred to any disagreements. This is my choice, since I am clearly not yet prepared to provide a description of the problem that will adequately satisfy all parties. I am confident that this disagreement had no impact on the quality of the nominees that we are giving you: it was a disputation on how exactly how many candidates we should provide you with: 14 or 20. The Board should decide whether an additional report on this disagreement is required. My apologies that this report contains such problems. I have done the best I can within the time allotted, and any errors, misstatements or omissions are mine alone. Tibor