Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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?
> Speaking only to the above, during the Nomcom I ran, I found it useful
> to pair up the interviewers and used every resource available. That
I did the same thing (as did Allison and Matt), and had the same problem
getting enough interviewer resources. Had I not had the liasons, a number of
interviews might not have been possible.
I want to emphasize that I never planned to have the liason lead or take
notes from an interview; but during nomcom discussion there might have been
one or two times when the liason had a memory that helped clarify or put into
better context what was said.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature