>>> >>> FWIW I think you are setting precedent without necessity - only voting members choose, non-voting members advise. >>> >> >> I agree. The relevant operative text is Section 4.17 of RFC 7437: >> >> The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool of >> names of volunteers and announces the members of the nominating >> committee. >> >> No more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation may be >> selected for the nominating committee. The Chair reviews the primary >> affiliation of each volunteer selected by the method in turn. If the >> primary affiliation for a volunteer is the same as two previously >> selected volunteers, that volunteer is removed from consideration and >> the method is repeated to identify the next eligible volunteer. >> >> It’s clear from the procedure that the input is the voting volunteers, the method is the random selection method, and that the chair’s test for primary affiliation occurs at this point in the process. Furthermore, a cornerstone of the process is that the only elements in the process one cannot determine in advance are the PRNG inputs, and by no means the selection policy. > > I agree, this is clearly called out in RFC7437 and the NomCom should follow it. > > If RFC7437 is revised to include this, then that effort should consider the liaisons affiliations as well, not just the current and past chairs. Are the liaisons known from all bodies before the voting members are selected. I know that they have not in the past. Russ
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
