It's always been my understanding of the IETF process that if a process rule defies common sense, we should ignore the rule and carry on. So I believe that the NomCom should simply inform its advisors that they don't get to vote on procedural issues this year. Or simply decide not to hold any votes on procedural issues. Or whatever common sense method allows them to have the advisors that they need. And before next year, just remove that clause from the BCP. Regards Brian Carpenter On 25-Jul-20 04:28, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > > >> From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Thank you for following the RFC8713 process and seeking the NomCom's >> approval of the proposed advisors. >> >> I trust that you and the Nomcom will still get useful help and advice >> from Henrik and Suresh, even with them outside the official NomCom >> circle, and I am confident that this NomCom will succeed. > > While I do think we will succeed, early indications are the NomCom will be somewhat hamstrung by the inability to bring in advisors. I strongly suspect the language in RFC8713 that grants voting privilege to all people brought in as advisors (to provide expert knowledge, skills, and guidance in any area where the NomCom may not natively have these ) will effectively prevent anyone from ever being brought in as an advisor. > > I'm wondering if it might be possible to file an erratum to get this immediate problem fixed in RFC8713? > Something like: > s/The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not vote on the selection of > candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the committee > unless otherwise specified in this document./ > The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not vote on the selection of > candidates. The Chair, liaisons and prior year's Chair do vote on all other issues before the committee > unless otherwise specified in this document. No other advisor votes./ > > Just a thought. I really dislike operating in a kludgy and inefficient way. It's obvious we need Henrik's help. This voting clause is really standing in the way of efficient operation, and potential advisors aren't saying "I refuse to advise unless I get to vote on procedural issues". > Barbara > > >> >> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: >> >>> With the addition of liaisons from every I*, adding Henrik and >>> Suresh would have caused there to be 9 people on NomCom who could >>> influence procedures -- potentially in ways that were undesirable to >>> a majority of the 10 Voting Members. This idea made some people >>> uncomfortable. > > . >
