On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:09 AM Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henrik has been tools advisor just about forever - well he was the tools advisor back when I was on the IESG -
he came with the job as nomcom chair - I do not recall that previous chairs specifically appointed him he was just "it"
but the key point is in the citation you provide
" advisor to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee"
the tools advisor does not "participate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee"
so is not covered under RFC 8713 section 4.3 - the chair has the power to appoint advisors that
do not participate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee as long as
the advisor has minimal contact with the confidential information the nomcom collects
(and Henrik can be trusted with confidential information in any case - he has been there & done that
I say 'move on, there is nothing to do here'
Having worked with him on Nomcom, I have no concerns with his involvement as a tools advisor.
regards,
Victor K
Scott
> On Jul 15, 2020, at 10:00 AM, Mary B <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm very puzzled over the concern about Henrik as Tools Advisor. He was tools advisor way back when I was Nomcom chair 2009-2010 and I know it goes back at least to the one prior. He has been an essential part of the process from that perspective. But, he did not (and I assume still does not) participate in any deliberations at all and as I recall he actually can't see any of the comments input by the community. But, his role has a dramatic impact on the ability of the nomcom to review the community input in the form other than a bunch of emails and of course, his work also has provided the community a nice tool so that we can provide that input.
>
> As far as other advisors, I will add that I do think it's important that their roles are clear cut from the outset in terms of the scope being providing input into the specific roles for the organization they represent or in the case of Suresh on process aspects. There had been Nomcoms where liaisons were more active, which I disagree with, but it is up to the specific Nomcom in terms of how they take input.
>
> If the concern is that there will be lots of folks that can see your input to the Nomcom, you can always provide input anonymously by contacting the chair or a Nomcom member with whom you're comfortable sharing.
>
> Regards,
> Mary..
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:11 PM 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
>
>
> >> 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.
>
