> On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:32 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > --On Thursday, January 08, 2015 11:08 -0500 Eric Burger > <eburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:59 AM, John C Klensin >> .... > >> Likewise, no matter how legalistic we become, a person with an >> agenda will have an agenda. > > Unquestionably. And, again, I don't want to see us attempt > fine-grained rules in this area, only discussion and better > calibration of community expectations than, e.g., the second you > cite above provides. > > For example and in the hope of being a bit less vague, I > personally see no need for liaisons to sit in on candidate > interviews, to see supposedly-confidential candidate > questionnaires, to see community input about particular > candidates, or to participate in Nomcom discussions or be > exposed to correspondence about particular candidates or > candidate choice rankings. And I see some disadvantages to the > quality and breadth of input the Nomcom is likely to receive to > their doing so. Do you disagree? > > best, > john As serving on nomcom in a liaison role in the past, I have to *agree* with you 1,000%. The liaisons should have a voice in the needs of their respective home groups, but should not be deciding who nomcom serves up. That means they do not have a burning need to be in the weeds of per-candidate nomcom stuff.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail