Subject: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 00:30:50 -0400

In the current document it is not clear totally to me that the Liaisons
should play a more limited role than currently stated, and this should
be the case.  The IAB and IESG Liaisons should only be present during
NOMCOM deliberations when requested and should not be part of the NOMCOM
discourse, unless they are required for clarfication as Liaisons.
Having the Liaisons in the room with the NOMCOM is like having the
Government with you in the voting booth, which is not good.

Thoughts?

Regards,
/jim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:41:30 +0200

> Government with you in the voting booth, which is not good.

I don't see how the IAB liaison can effectively verify the fairness
of the Nomcom's work on the IESG choices unless the IAB liaison is
present full time. That can only be fixed by putting the entire
responsibility for verifying fairness on the ISOC liaison.

The IAB and IESG liaisons need to be present whenever structure, processes 
and relationships inside their respective bodies are in question. 

I think the text should make it clear that the Nomcom chair can ask
the IAB and IESG liaisons to leave the calls when appropriate, rather
than attempting to limit their speech.

   Brian

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:17:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking personally, I agree with Brian except that I don't think we
need explicit text.

Speaking as editor of the document:

On Fri, 23 May 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

    I think the text should make it clear that the Nomcom chair can ask
    the IAB and IESG liaisons to leave the calls when appropriate,
    rather than attempting to limit their speech.

The text currently states that all members of the committee are
explicitly permitted to attend all meetings of the committee.  This
clarification was added at least one RFC ago to ensure that no one,
including liaisons, could be excluded.

As I recall, suggesting that certain members can be excluded then opens
the discussion for defining the appropriate criteria, and that is a very
slippery slope.

Note too, that this version of the document has a dispute resolution
process that should contribute to the ability of the NOMCOM to
successfully address internal issues.  It is intended to make it clear
that any member of the committee has a path to raise concerns and get
them addressed, fairly and expeditiously.

Jim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 17:22:11 +0200

> Speaking personally, I agree with Brian except that I don't think we

Since the Nomcom chair has explicit discretion for undocumented
pieces of process, that is strictly true, but some people seem
to want it written.

> the discussion for defining the appropriate criteria, and that is a very

Indeed, and I would leave that to the Nomcom chair's discretion, and
*not* attempt to write down anything more than "The IAB and IESG 
liaisons may be requested to temporarily leave the conference calls, 
at the chair's discretion."

> them addressed, fairly and expeditiously.

Yes, and that is how the chair's decisions can be challenged.

   Brian

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:36:56 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Still speaking as editor:

Actually, the discretion is with the committee as a whole, not the
Chair.  This was changed at least one RFC ago.

Quoting from the document:

  5. Nominating Committee Operation

     1.   All rules and special circumstances not otherwise specified are
          at the discretion of the committee.

          Exceptional circumstances will occasionally arise during the
          normal operation of the nominating committee.  This rule is
          intended to foster the continued forward progress of the
          committee.

          Any member of the committee may propose a rule for adoption by
          the committee.  The rule must be approved by all members of the
          committee according to its established voting mechanism.

          All members of the committee should consider whether the
          exception is worthy of mention in the next revision of this
          document and follow-up accordingly.

With the above in mind -- and generalizing the principle -- would the
following be acceptable to you:

    Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested
    to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion.

I left it as Chair because I do believe it is reasonable to explicitly
give this discretion to the Chair.

I added advisors because it seems sensible to apply the principle
explicitly to all parties who are not voting members.

The exception for the Past Chair is necessary because the position is
considered an "advisor" in the text.

Jim

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:38:29 -0400 (EDT)

works for me

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 17:59:06 +0200

>     to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion.

Me too

   Brian