--On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 18:10 -0400 Samuel Weiler
<weiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>
>> I needed the tools advisor in place when I started the
>> volunteer process.
>
> ....
>
>> I also asked Suresh to be an advisor, as permitted by RFC
>> 8713.
>
> My read of RFC8713 section 4.3 is that you are not premitted
> to appoint advisors on your own. The relevant text is:
>
> Any committee member may propose the addition of an
> advisor to
> participate in some or all of the deliberations of the
> committee.
> The addition must be approved by the committee according
> to its
> established voting mechanism.
>
> I do not object to you having sought advice from Henrik and
> Suresh up to this point, but, as I wrote this morning, I hope
> that you will propose these new advisors to the NomCom once it
> is seated and give the NomCom (excluding the two proposed
> additions) the opportunity to approve the additions (or not,
> as they deem appropriate).
>
> I look forward to your confirmation that you will take this
> path.
Sam,
I disagree a bit with your reading. The language you quote is
about advisors who will "participate in some or all of the
deliberations of the committee". Taking Henrik and tools as an
example, I would see no possible reason why he would need to
participate in committee deliberations. If Barbara has felt a
need to seek his advice in getting things set up (especially in
these unusual times), he is advising her, not becoming an
advisor to the Nomcom. Common sense applies here too; if one
does not make that particular distinction, then she would end up
in a race condition in which she needs advice to run the Nomcom
volumteer and member selection process but cannot get that
advice until the members are seated to approve the selection.
It wasn't clear to me what role Suresh has been serving or what
role Barbara expects him to serve as the Nomcom gets going (now
that it has a list of members). If that role includes any
participation in the Nomcom's actual work (I would think even
exposure to candidate data, whether taking positions on
candidates or other issues or not), I agree with you that
Barbara should submit his name and try get approval as you
suggest. Even if he were going to provide procedural advice
after the voting members have been selected, but not be exposed
to candidate data, I'd encourage her to go through that process
in the interest of transparency and the avoidance of doubt.
As I said, I disagree a bit. I hope not a lot.
I do have another concern, but perhaps it is better addressed in
a separate note.
thanks,
john
