Joel, Agreed (strongly) but one clarification because I'm not sure what you intended. You said that the liaisons "should have no say in" the selection/decision process. I agree. But we've had periodic interpretations in the IETF (I hope never in a Nomcom) in which recusal (or "no say") has been interpreted as allowing free participating in discussions as long as the person doesn't vote. For this case, if we are clarifying things, "no say" should mean that liaisons who are present (f2f or electronically) for actual discussions of candidates and candidate choices should not vote, express opinions or even convey opinions by non-sentence sounds, facial expressions, or body language that the voting/selecting members can observe or interpret. I hope it is obvious, but advisors should be at least that restricted. thanks, john --On Sunday, July 26, 2020 15:18 -0400 Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 =- >> >
