The RFC does not mandate the degree of liaison participation or
non-participation in the nomcom discussions and other non-voting aspects
of the process. From what I have observed and what I have done,
different chairs have mandated different limits on that participation.
We can, as part of writing a new document, decide to be more explicit.
We should be clear however that for the current nomcom, it is up to the
nomcom chair.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/10/2019 10:47 AM, Mary B wrote:
IMHO, if the liaisons have comments on nominees, then they should input
those into the tool like everyone else in the community. In my view,
any involvement in discussions from liaisons should be based on the IESG
roles and responsibilities and not on individual nominees. There were
incident(s) in the past where an IESG liaison was very involved in
discussions, which is one reason I think why Nomcoms, thereafter, were
more careful. I also think voting members should also use the tool
for input on individuals. I personally think it's very important that
the process and decisions are driven by community input along with
questionnaire responses, interviews, etc, as opposed to a popularity
contest and whose friends with who. I think some Nomcoms have done
better than others in this regard. I don't think the community input
always gets the priority it should. That all said, when I was Nomcom
chair, the amount of input from the community was pathetic. So, this
goes back to the community - if people really care about who ends up in
leadership positions, then please provide input to the Nomcom and
nominate people. Believe it or not, we have people in this community
that might be hesitant to nominate themselves.
Regards,
Mary.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:26 PM Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:adam@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 7/9/19 3:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Well, if that interpretation allows non-voting members to vote on
issues
> affecting nomination choices, IMHO it's plain wrong.
If it's any comfort (speaking as IESG liaison to NomCom for last year's
cycle), non-voting members did not vote on issues such as questionnaire
contents. We (non-voting members) did offer personal observations to
the
voting members, but it was quite clear that the actual decisions on
anything directly related to the nomination process resided solely with
voting members. It wouldn't hurt to make the document clearer, but
-- at
least with a single (albeit time-local) data point -- things don't
appear to be going off the rails at the moment.
/a
