Mary B <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I agree with what Mike is saying in general. I see absolutely no
> reason why an individual cannot send comments to the Nomcom chair
> wanting them to remain anonymous or only shared with voting members and
> not discussed in meetings with liaisons. That could be something that
In the three nomcoms I was in, the nomcom chair accepted anonymous comments, and
as nomcom chair I did the same. I can not recall if this was made use of,
my feeling is yes, at least once.
I was never asked not to share with liasons, but I think that had I been
given a good reason, I would have done exactly that.
> When I was Nomcom chair, my view was that the liaisons are there to
> ensure the process is followed and to take any questions they might
> have back to the bodies they represent and only interject if there is a
> process problem or it seems that the voting members might not be
> understanding requirements for the role.
Agreed.
> I personally did not think it
> appropriate for them to be in interviews and really I don't see why
> they would need to see comments.
All 5 five of the nomcoms that I was part of had liasons observing
interviews. I think that all parties were aware of conflicts, did not
participate in interviews when it was someone from their company, etc.
> So, I think there should be a channel for limiting information seen by
> non-voting members.
I don't think that the decryption key was shared with liasons, but my memory
is not strong here.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
