There is one other aspect that occurs to me.
While the current nomcom is apparently concerned about the voting
participation, the degree to which liaisons and advisors participate in
discussions can easily be a much bigger issue than any factor of voting
on procedural matters.
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
