On Fri, Jul 24, 2020, at 12:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Why? I was a NomCom liaison only once, but that year's NomCom chair > wanted to use Condorcet voting, so that required a formal procedural > decision. I couldn't see any reason why that was a choice that a > liaison should influence. What sort of procedural matters require a > formal decision *and* are appropriate for a liaison to influence? I was merely trying to preserve what I think was a deliberate choice to the extent possible. I am inclined to agree with you. It would be fair to change this to say that the only non-voting entity that should have a say in procedural matters is the chair, but only because they are obliged to administer the process. That said, if the NomCom were to decide that the procedure for choosing IETF chair was to blindfold each person and have them pin something to pictures of nominees, akin to the children's party game of pin the tail on the donkey, I can see why liaisons might want to have a say in that. That might be better dealt with by including that in a report to a confirming body. I don't know if it is explicitly permitted to report on the procedure used. I consider it a central function of the liaison, and certainly did so when acting as liaison.
