The more I read this discussion, the more I think we should clarify this
somewhat.
One example that has sometimes mattered (some years it is
non-controversial) is how the decision process to select a nominee from
the candidates will be conducted. While this needs to be done in sight
of the reporting liaisons, it seems to me that they should have no say
in the matter. One can (and I did, many years ago) interpret the rules
to allow the chair to say that such a vote is part of the candidate
selection process, and therefore exclude the liaisons from voting. But
it is not required, and not obvious.
There are other cases that arise where votes are needed, and clarity on
whether the laisisons or advisors can or should participate is helpful.
Note: none of this should in any way be seen as second-guessing the
current committee. The rules are there for a reason, and they are
making the decision as they see best. I am more concerned about
forward-looking issues.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/26/2020 2:51 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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 do not share the concern about the number of advisors.
There are very few important votes that involve everyone.
The major one is the proceeedures, and that vote is pretty much always
unanimous, or discussed until it is unanimous.
The rest are essentially equivalent to whether we should "break for lunch"
If there is a vote in between, odds are the advisors will abstain appropriately.
> 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./
So, in the last revision that Murray did, I argued that the terms be
"selecting member" and "non-selecting member"
Every single year, someone who has never been involved with the nomcom thinks
the advisors will vote on selection votes, and it's just not the case.
Often one or two voting members are confused in the beginning.
Have the past-chair explain.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
