I agree that 7437 should be updated to make its language more precise.
However, we still need to agree on exactly what it should say. :-)
The past chair should be exempt from affecting affiliation limits, because the past chair is exactly that and cannot be replaced by someone else as a result of their affiliation. Including them in the affiliation limits is unfair to the past chair's affiliated organization.
Liaisons are chosen by the organization sending the liaison for their expertise in helping to inform the Nomcom about the duties of their particular organization. Excluding possible liaisons due to their affiliation places an undue burden on the sending organization.
Advisors other than the past chair are chosen by the Nomcom itself. It should be up to each Nomcom to decide whether or not affiliation is important when making the appointment.
So that just leaves the Chair. It's been noted that a chair can have influence on the final result, even if they don't have a vote, so the chair should be included in the limit calculation.
Just my two cents.
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:12 AM Scott Mansfield <scott.mansfield@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think (as the instigator of this issue) that..
First off: Need two terms clearly defined:
Voting Volunteers
Non-Voting Volunteers
Voting Volunteers are already defined in 4.11.
Non-Voting Volunteers are not precisely defined as a category/term but would include: NomCom Chair, Past Chair, Advisors, and Liaisons.
The Nominating Committee is Voting Volunteers + Non-Voting Volunteers.
So. For the affiliation question.
Current (the community seems to favor) that 4.17 is talking only about Voting Volunteers not the whole Nominating Committee. So, section 4.17 should say that if that is what is desired.
Using that interpretation, there currently is no hard number on affiliation affecting the Non-Voting Volunteers. All that the current RFC has is Appendix B #5 (Oral Tradition) that "The number of nominating committee members with the same primary affiliation is limited in order to avoid the appearance of improper bias in choosing the leadership of the IETF." So if that sentence is only talking about Voting members, then it should say that clearly. Otherwise it is up to interpretation because some feel (well maybe just me) that when talking about "nominating committee members" we mean all nominating committee members not just voting members.
So. Just a bit of tweaking to clearly indicate what the community wants is in order. Keep in mind that (I believe) we are arguing about this because we care about a fair playing field and all want the best results for the community.
Regards,
-scott.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 10:50 AM
To: Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Future adjustment of nomcom company limits (Was: Re: Nomcom 2019-2020: Result of random selection process)
Changing the subject line for everyone’s benefit, if we are discussing RFC revisions :-)
Bob, Russ:
>> 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’ point is one of those considerations to take into account if we make a change.
But in addition, I think there’s a strategic question of how far one wants the needle to go. What’s the right answer? I have not been in Nomcom, but I think there’s a difference in the roles of liaisons, voting members, and chairs. Is the right answer to consider just the voting members, voting members + chair, voting members + chair + ex chair, or all of that + liaisons? It is not clear to _me_ what the right answer is, but it might be worth discussing that through before worrying too much about the mechanics and ordering of events.
Jari
