Thank you all for your advice regarding advisors. I'm putting discussion of advisors on the agenda for my initial NomCom meeting. <attempt at humor>I'm tempted to add ietf@xxxxxxxx as an additional advisor -- but not one with access to confidential info.</attempt at humor> Barbara > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Resnick > > On 15 Jul 2020, at 12:57, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > > is there something I missed where the chair said that was happening > > (Henrik would be able to vote on procedures or candidates?) > > It sounded from the chair's note of Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:08:28 +0000 that she > thought that the assorted additional folks in question were already > appointed as advisors. Sam pointed out that if they were advisors, they > would have the ability to vote on procedures, and therefore their > appointment as advisors ought to be approved by the voting members. > (Nobody thought they could vote on candidates, but only that they would be > part of the deliberations.) After Sam's note, Mary, Victor, and you replied > with defenses of Henrik being the tools advisor. That seemed curious, since > none of you addressed Sam's point, and nobody ever suggested that Henrik > shouldn't be tools advisor, which is why I replied. > > pr > > >> On Jul 15, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Nobody objected to Henrik (or anyone else) being the Tools Advisor, > >> or to any of the other non-8713-listed advisors being on NomCom. The > >> only concern is that the voting members and the 8713-listed > >> non-voting members need to explicitly decide whether or not they will > >> (a) participate in deliberations and (b) be able to vote on > >> procedural matters of the NomCom. The chair can't simply add > >> additional advisors who can vote to change the procedures of the > >> NomCom without the approval of the voting members of the NomCom. > >> > >> pr > >> > >> On 15 Jul 2020, at 11:27, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.i > >>>>> etf.org_nomcom_2020_&d=DwIBAg&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8s > >>>>> > c8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=gkzPWOkPAQyFQsbmEULkAewFDOyYuyMoKwrrVakfltE& > s=8yKW > >>>>> gNsk2Epq1ZhvoSr6J2ABEbMfJAtdAqt_pgaroNE&e= > >>>>> > >>>>> [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. > > > -- > Pete Resnick https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.episteme.net_&d=DwIBAg&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC- > 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=gkzPWOkPAQyFQsbmEULkAewFDOyYuyMoKwrrVakflt > E&s=BbE9_ilXns8O1nds-mZq0_gNF-6Y7oYu-z0FWo9zmcQ&e= > All connections to the world are tenuous at best
