Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At Alissa Cooper's request, I put together a short draft that updates BCP 10,
> the Nomcom process, adding a reminder that Nomcoms can ask the IAOC to
> provide an advisor, and the IAOC can provide one.
The other entities provide liasons, and I see that your document explains why
an advisor is listed. I understand that the word "advisor" is from BCP10,
and allows the nomcom to add advisors to the nomcom. I'd call this an
"import", because the nomcom pulls someone in.
The other liason are not nomcom decisions, and so there is some subtle distinction.
It's also not clear to be that we want the NOMCOM to ask for an IAOC advisor,
or if we the IAOC appoints someone. The previous tradition was the IAOC
appointed someone, and they gave us Ole even after he was no longer a seated
IAOC member.
As a voting member and chair, I found the IAOC (liason) very useful in
explaining not only what the IAOC does, but also what the IAB and IESG do not
do, even when sometimes IAOC activities get relayed via IETF Chair or IAB
chair. Many voting members are ignorant of the IAOC and sometimes look for
characteristics in an IESG or IAB member that would be more appropriate for IAOC.
So I strongly agree with always having an IAOC liason/advisor, even when not
appointing someone directly to the IAOC.
{nomcom: 2002,2012,2013. chair: 2014}
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature