I totally agree - that's how it was when I was Nomcom chair and how I personally think it should be. If liaisons have input on nominees, that should go into the tool as feedback from a community member. And, depending upon the nature of the feedback, recuse themselves from being present during discussions.
Regards,
Mary.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:36 AM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Melinda,
> On Jul 23, 2020, at 11:37 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 7/23/20 6:14 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Indeed.
>
> I was IAB liaison a few years ago and stayed out (or tried to stay
> out) of the decision-making process. It seems to me to be important
> to avoid creating processes that are effectively closed and/or uniform,
> and nomcom is one of the most obvious places in the IETF where that
> can happen. I think it's valuable to give them space to breathe
> and to deal with any gross irregularities during the confirmation
> process.
>
I agree.
I think about this as liaisons are there to answer questions about the group they are from (and report back on the process to their groups), but otherwise should not be speaking. Otherwise, they are having an undue influence on the NomCom process.
Bob
