On 10-Jul-19 01:18, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Mike StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Jul 8, 2019, at 19:30, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 7/8/19 3:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>> It rather shocks me that you include "whether to approve a questionnaire,
> >>> approving voting proceedures" here. It seems to me that for those decisions,
> >>> the liaisons should sit back. (They would certainly provide input to the
> >>> questionnaires, of course.)
> >>
> >> That was the case in the last cycle, and it was quite clear
> >> that it must be the case.
>
> > Same for my last go around about 3 years ago.
>
> I've been involved 5 times, and liasons had a vote as to when the meetings
> would be each time. So this definitely needs clarification.
Of course, that's common sense. I was specifically objecting to liaisons
having a vote on substantive issues affecting the nomination choices,
which the questionnaires and voting rule clearly do.
On 10-Jul-19 01:37, Scott Mansfield wrote:
....
> So anytime a decision
> needs to be taken that requires a vote that is NOT a candidate selection
> vote, is voted on by the whole team.
Well, if that interpretation allows non-voting members to vote on issues
affecting nomination choices, IMHO it's plain wrong. For example, suppose
a NomCom needs to decide whether to use Condorcet voting or simple majority
voting to select nominees, that is surely not a decision where liaisons
should participate.
I agree that this is not clear in RFC7437, because it leaves it open
what issues might need a formal vote, apart from candidate selection.
In my experience as a NomCom liaison, this didn't arise since everything
else went by consensus anyway.
This should probably be on the issues list for RFC7437bisbis.
Brian
