Without speaking to the general question, I may be able to provide some
useful perspective on why the rules were written the way they were.
The original liaisons all have a multi-part role wherein they provide
information to the nomcom and also provide feedback to the respective
approving body that the process was properly carried out. As such, it
was felt that they needed to be able to have a say in how the process
was run,, with a particular eye towards making sure that they were able
to observe enough of it to be able to provide their reports.
Clearly, that reporting role does not apply to liaisons from the LLC or
the Trust, or the tools advisor. Or another advisor whoe involvement is
requested by the committee.
I would observe that for an advisor invited by the committee to provide
assistance, it does seem likely that they need to be able to understand
the process so as to give useful advice.
One could I suppose differentiate the various categories and write
different rules for them.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/23/2020 5:45 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
NomCom has not approved Suresh or Henrik as Advisors per RFC8713.
The main sticking point is the following language in RFC8713 section 4.3:
The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not vote on the selection of
candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the committee
unless otherwise specified in this document.
With the addition of liaisons from every I*, adding Henrik and Suresh would have caused there to be 9 people on NomCom who could influence procedures -- potentially in ways that were undesirable to a majority of the 10 Voting Members. This idea made some people uncomfortable.
While the current NomCom will operate under RFC8713 as is, I was wondering if the ietf list might not enjoy discussing how and whether to resolve this for future NomComs. A thought I had was: Is it really necessary for Advisors to have voting privileges "on all other issues before the committee"?
Thx,
Barbara
