The primary procedural vote that the liaisons need a say (no more than
anyone else, but no less) is when the non-face-to-face meetings occur.
I suppose also if there were sub-groups, that could be relevant. (I do
not know of a nomcom that did this other than for interviews.)
All of the other procedural matters I can think of are things where if
handled sufficiently badly, they merely become fodder for the liaisons'
report to the confirming bodies about the quality of the process.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/23/2020 10:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 24-Jul-20 12:09, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020, at 08:42, Joel Halpern wrote:
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.
Understand perhaps, but maybe not influence. I totally understand the reticence here. Maybe member = vote, liaison = vote on produral matters only,
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?
Clearly we aren't talking about trivia like setting meeting times or deciding whether to use Zoom or Whereby. So what are we talking about?
advisor = no voting.
Agreed, no-brainer.
Brian
