The discussion aspects leave me very torn. I can see both sides. (I
will say that when I was a nomcom chair many years ago, I interpretted
the rules to permit very little discussion by liaisons.)
In terms of providing feedback, I would hate to require liaisons to
anonymize their feedback. They should be able to use the tool to
provide feedback just as much as other community members (including
incumbents, candidates, and those prohibited from serving on nomcom by
any of a number of conflicts.) It may be that your wording on this
topic intended to allow that, but you seemed to be saying something more
strict.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/26/2020 10:03 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, July 26, 2020 18:22 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was carefully not talking about discussion among nomcom
participants.
As far as I can tell, nomcom chairs, nomcom members, and the
community have a wide range of views on the degree to which
liaisons should participate in such discussion.
While I tend towards your description below, I wanted to
separate the voting, and make clear that the voting rules do
matter.
Well, I'm glad I spoke up, because we actually may disagree. In
an environment where there are only 10 nominal Nomcom members
who vote on candidates and the intent is to do things by
consensus rather than by, e.g., narrow majorities, the influence
of someone recognized, by virtue of being appointed as a liaison
by a relevant leadership body, as being more knowledgeable than
the typical Nomcom member and who then strongly supports or
argues for rejection of particular candidates is likely to be
important all out of proportion than the effect of an extra vote
or two.
And...
--On Monday, July 27, 2020 10:38 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The aspect that's tricky is if a liaison or advisor wishes to
exercise their right (duty?) as an IETF community member to
give feedback on the published nominees. Are they allowed to
do so, and if so, should it be completely anonymised?
For the reasons above, I think either it has to be completely
anonymized (sic) or, just as someone who volunteers as a voting
member gives up the opportunity to be selected for a
Nomcom-appointed position, someone who volunteers to be a
liaison should be treated as having given their rights to make
comments on individual candidates.
Back when we anticipated 10 voting members and a couple of
liaisons (see RFC 2027 which, incidentally, clearly puts
"non-voting" with "liaison") and also anticipated that voting
Nomcom members would be sufficiently familiar with how the IETF
works and the people who were, or might be candidates for,
leadership positions, to not depend significantly on
questionnaires and external advice, none of this made a much
difference. Now, however...
best,
john
john
