--On Sunday, July 26, 2020 22:10 -0400 Joel Halpern
<jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
On the one hand, I don't particularly like anonymous comments
--the voting Nomcom members should know who they are dealing
with and, if appropriate, be able to assess credibility. On the
other, I continue to be concerned about liaisons or advisory
exerting more influence than they would have if they were "other
community members". The reality is that, as soon as they move
away from the role of silent observers whose only job is to
report back to the relevant bodies on the Nomcom's processes,
etc., they are necessarily participating in the Nomcom as the
representatives of the bodies that appointed them. To get back
to my first comments in this thread, that means that, in most
cases, they will represent a bias toward the status quo and
maybe toward returning incumbents. I continue to see that as a
risk if they start influencing the choice of candidates for
particular positions.
john
