On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:09 PM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm replying to this message to provide additional clarity regarding the non-voting NomCom members. > While only certain of the I* organizations are required to provide liaisons, all are allowed to name liaisons. They have all chosen to do so. This is helpful with ensuring the NomCom voting members have someone who can properly represent the qualifications for a position on that I*. > The liaisons are selected by each I* organization. Who the voting members are is not relevant to the selection of liaisons by the I* orgs. Therefore, there is no need for sequencing of liaison naming vis-à-vis the selection of voting members. My request to the I* orgs was that they provide me with names prior to next week, so I could onboard the entire NomCom at the same time. When an I* org provided me with a name, I put the name on the NomCom 2020 web page. While they have been named, and I've had some communication with them about open positions on their I* (and qualifications for those positions), I haven't discussed anything else with them. > I needed the tools advisor in place when I started the volunteer process. Henrik made sure the eligibility checking tool was properly set to check for attendance at IETF 102-106 and did other magical tools things. > The previous year's NomCom chair is automatically an advisor. Victor has been very helpful and I've needed his advice a lot. I also asked Suresh to be an advisor, as permitted by RFC 8713. This is a weird year. I'm new to this NomCom thing. And process isn't my strong suit. > > As it relates to all of this process stuff (how to get volunteers, selecting seeds, handling challenges, etc.), the only people advising me have been Victor and Suresh. I have no opinions on the challenge / selection / voting vs non-voting / etc[0], but I did quickly want to chime in to say "Thank you" to Barbara, Victor and Suresh. Serving on the NomCom is a huge undertaking and being chair/similar is an even larger undertaking. It's important that we get this right, but let's not lose track of the fact that people participate as volunteers, the process is somewhat complex (and doesn't cover all corner cases), and everyone is trying to do the right thing. >From my sanctimonious soapbox, W > The liaisons are not advisors for NomCom process. They are liaisons. See RFC 8713 for a description of liaison responsibilities. > The tool advisor provides support related to tools. > As stated in RFC 8713: > An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the > invitation that resulted in the appointment. > > Barbara > > > From: Samuel Weiler > > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 6:46 AM > > > > On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, S Moonesamy wrote: > > > > > There is a special past-past chair advisor. The explanation for that > > > is "this year is so strange". Making such an appointment was not > > > discussed during the evaluation of the document which was published as > > > RFC 8788. There isn't any information about which > > > rule(s) was used to make that appointment. > > > > The list at [1] also includes Henrik as a tools team advisor. > > > > One might presume that the NomCom chair intends to propose both > > additional advisors to the NomCom according to the usual process in section > > 4.3 of RFC8713. It is odd to see them announced before the voting > > memebers of NomCom are seated. > > > > It is interesting how the number of non-voting NomCom members has > > grown over time. This list has nine(!) non-voting members, and that is > > before the voting members have been seated and potentially added more. > > NomCom 2019 had 8. NomCom 2018 had 7. NomCom 2017 had 6. > > NomComs 2016 and 2015 each had only 5. [2] > > > > If I were a voting member of this NomCom, I would be concerned about > > being overwhelmed by advisors, particularly since the advisors get a vote on > > procedural matters, including the removal of voting NomCom members. > > > > -- Sam > > > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2020/ > > > > [2] n.b. I'm looking at the lists at [1]. It is possible these NomComs added > > advisors that are not listed. I'm pretty sure NomCom > > 2015 added Henrik as an advisor. > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
