Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> 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?
Actually, I think it is about trivia like setting meeting times.
There really aren't much that the group as a whole needs to vote on.
But, as Joel said above: it is important that meeting times are when everyone
can attend.
At the same time, if a selecting member can't attend at a particular time
then that ought to be more important than if an advisor can't attend.
Given time zones, it's hard to please everyone, but I think that as an
advisor that's one of the lumps one takes.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
