> On Jan 8, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: […] > My only Nomcom experience is also as ISOC liaison, some years ago now, and > I certainly agree that guidance about the limits on a liaison's role would > be of value. However, there's also a practical aspect: if only certain > information and certain parts of the discussions are open to the liaisons, > there will be very clumsy discussions where a point has to be put on hold > until the relevant liaison can be consulted. > > Just to test where people think the limit should be, here's a hypothetical. > The Nomcom has got feedback that nominee X has been consistently obstructive > in resolving disputes and is always unwilling to compromise. Nomcom > doesn't know whether this is valid. Should the liaison be asked to comment? Here is a hypothetical that gives the answer. The nomcom has got feedback that nominee X has been consistently obstructive in resolving disputes and is always unwilling to compromise. Nomcom doesn't know whether this is valid. Should <change>nomcom ask people in the community</change> to comment? My answer is Yes. As the liaison is part of the community, there is no reason not to ask the liaison to comment, > BTW there is another aspect of the liaison role: acting as part of the > checks and balances, by being able to assure the confirming bodies that > Nomcom has followed correct and unbiased procedure. To that extent, > liaisons do need to witness discussions, without influencing them. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-4.7 actually places several > specific duties on liaisons that effectively require them to track > Nomcom discussion quite closely. Being around for discussions is quite different than digging into the deep, dark backgrounds of candidates or doing the work of the nomcom (doing or being at interviews, etc.). I believe that was the original question.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail