John,
This is certainly a concern, however, I would point to
However, if there are perceptions in the community that things
are not going well -- because an incumbent has become
problematic despite possibly having a large and loud fan club,
because an area (or the entire IAB) is structured badly relative
to community needs but incumbents have been resistant to change,
or because the relevant body has gone astray (our best example
predates the Nomcom but would be the IAB during the "Kobe"
period whose behavior led to the current general structure of
the IETF)-- then there is considerable risk that the liaisons
will act as forces to resist change.
Especially if it is time to rethink liaison or advisor roles,
what is visible to them and how much they are visible to the
Nomcom, and who determines procedures, it may be worth thinking
about those risks and what might be done to mitigate them.
Would I be correct in interpreting this as there is premise a single liaison can effectively overcome good and plentiful feedback made available to the Nomcom from the community to affect a different outcome from what the community wanted (irrespective of not having an actual selection vote)?
I guess that could happen, however, my understanding is that the confirming body, whom would have a different liaison which reports back to that body on the process followed, could consider this before confirmation of a selection.
The feedback provided (which can a only be provided and/or discussed within the Nomcom) form the community would be quite evident. If there was a large issue, that information would be available for consideration by the voting members.
I would suggested we study actual outcomes from previous Nomcoms to see how well they have made selections and/or changes during times of issue as evidence as to the quality of the current process and setup.
Regards,
Victor K
john
