Subject: DISCUSSION: define the role of a liaison

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:15:54 -0500 (EST)

Currently, the document does not define the role or responsibility of a
liaison, except to say that organizational liaisons represent their
organization and that liaisons "participate in some or all of the
deliberations of the committee."  It has been suggested that the
document should more clearly state the purpose of a liaison.

The document has been intentionally silent on this issue to date because
it was originally believed the Chair should have the flexibility to use
the liaisons as needed.  However, experience has shown that liaisons
participate more or less as full members of the committee except that
they do not vote.  In addition it has been suggested that there are
times when the voting members of the committee would appreciate the
opportunity to have discussions without the liaisons.  Although in
principle the document permits this it is problematic in practice.

So it would seem the liaisons should either be voting members or not,
and we should make this clear.

If they are voting members this is a straightforward change to the
document.  If they are not voting members we should state explicitly
what their role and responsibility is.

I'm looking for comments and suggestions from people as to whether or
not the liaisons should be voting members and, if not, how should we
define their role and responsibility?

Thanks,

Jim

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:43:45 +0700

Date:        Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:15:54 -0500 (EST)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | So it would seem the liaisons should either be voting members or not,
  | and we should make this clear.

Of course they're not voting members, and shouldn't be, if that had ever
been intended, that's what would have been said.

But I also don't know what the problem is supposed to be - the nomcom
chair is also not a voting member, and yet participates in all the
discussions, etc - perhaps the nomcom members might like to exclude the
chair sometimes too.

If there's been a problem that actually needs fixing, I'd like someone to
(at a minimum) propose some language that would actually fix the problem
that was actually encountered (better if the actual problem can be explained
as well, but that might not be possible).

Without that, do nothing at all.

kre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:22:01 +0100

The problem that needs fixing is that it is not stated that

  The liaisons' roles are limited to communication between the NomCom
  and the body each liaison represents.

because we have evidence of liaisons taking an active part in the
process and that ain't right IMHO.

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland
Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:11:11 +1100

>process and that ain't right IMHO.

In my experience as a liaison and as a past chair, liaison members of the 
Nomcom have been used in two roles. They have been a conduit for 
communication between the NomCom and the body they liaise with, but they 
have also been considered as working members of the committee, and have 
undertaken interviews, and participated in committee discussions as a peer 
member. The limitation is they do not participate in gathering the sense of 
the committee, either informally or formally as in a vote.

The statement above is more restrictive than the practice I observed in the 
past, and the consideration of the appropriateness of that practice is 
certainly a reasonable one.

A view formed from my experience is that this practice has been helpful in 
allowing the committee to use all the committee's resources to gather input 
and context for their work, but there is a certain level of discretion 
placed on the role of the committee chair to distinguish between a liaison 
position participating in the gathering of input and context and the 
position exercising undue influence on the committee's formal consideration 
of nominated candidates.

regards,

   Geoff

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:16:13 -0500

>   and the body each liaison represents.

Does this mean, for example, that:

 - a liason should not speak unless explicitely asked?

 - a liason speaks only about issues concerning the body they
   represent, and then provides what he/she believes would be a
   representative view of that body?

 - the previous nomcom chair is (I believe) technically a liasion. Do
   the same guidelines apply to that role (vs. that for the IAB or
   IESG liason)? Would it be appropriate to speak up about potential
   problems with the voting proceedure that is being developed?

 - should a liaison offer an opinion/input during a discusion in which
   he/she has direct knowledge (this might, for example, be direct
   experience with a particular candidate that relates to the
   qualities the nomcom is considering)?

Clearly, there are many more questions along these lines.

Your words suggest to me a very narrow role for the liaison, one in
which the answer the first question might well be "yes". 

Thomas

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:00:30 -0800

As a sitting nomcom member who has just finished the primary round of 
nomcom effort, I'll strongly confirm Geoff's observations about both facts 
and benefits concerning liaisons.;

My theoretical side is uncomfortable with the idea of liaisons being active 
participants.  My practical experience is that the effect goes beyond 
beneficial and lives somewhere in the realm of essential.

As is so often true with the IETF, what works is counterintuitive.

At base the reality is that nomcoms have enormous flexibility in their 
operating style.  This carries some risks, of course, but also carries 
massive benefit.  Nomcom participants are typically rather assertive 
souls.  If there is a problem, it gets stated.  We do not need to worry 
about one or another liaison dominating... unless the rest of nomcom deems 
that domination beneficial.  And if they so deem, what is the basis for 
having a formal rule to prevent it?

Unless and until there is evidence that the current arrangement does 
strategic damage, let's not try to fix something that ain't broke.

d/

At 10:11 AM 3/15/2002 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
>member. The limitation is they do not participate in gathering the sense 
>of the committee, either informally or formally as in a vote.
>
>The statement above is more restrictive than the practice I observed in 
>the past, and the consideration of the appropriateness of that practice is 
>allowing the committee to use all the committee's resources to gather 
>input and context for their work, but there is a certain level of

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:58:43 -0800

>Without that, do nothing at all.

I agree, but we should at least acknowledge that some NOMCOM members may 
feel pressed upon by a strong liaison member. We can't do anything about 
that. NOMCOM members must consider all sorts of data points and if they 
allow themselves to be unduly influenced by a liaison member, then can be 
unduly influenced by anything.

The benefit of the liaisons outweigh any negative influence they might 
bring. It's up to the voting members to sift through the data and to vote 
their conscience.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 18:55:53 +0700

Date:        Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:22:01 +0100
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | The problem that needs fixing is that it is not stated that
  | 
  |   The liaisons' roles are limited to communication between the NomCom
  |   and the body each liaison represents.
  | 
  | because we have evidence of liaisons taking an active part in the
  | process and that ain't right IMHO.

But why?   I don't have a problem with them taking a more active role.
For sure, they should represent the interests of the body they're
representing and (as much as is possible given the nomcom context) report
back as to how the nomcom is proceeding.  But I see no harm to allowing
them to do as much more work as they're willing to do.  They're there
anyway.

kre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 18:50:54 +0100

I don't think we should end up with highly restrictive text, and I'm
certainly not criticising past or present liaisons since we have no rules
in place today, but the type of participation described in Geoff's recent
message is beyond what I'd expect a liaison to do. I could go for text
that states that the liaisons' primary roles are communication and
process monitoring, and that they are absolutely excluded from decision
taking. Let's see what the community thinks about liaisons taking part in the
interview process. I may be the only person made uncomfortable by it.

The previous NomCom chair is a slightly different case, I agree. By construction,
they/he/she is not a current I* member, so there is no conflict.

   Brian

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 01:17:33 +0700

Date:        Sun, 17 Mar 2002 18:50:54 +0100
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Let's see what the community thinks about liaisons taking part in the
  | interview process.

I don't mind it.

  | The previous NomCom chair is a slightly different case, I agree.
  | By construction, they/he/she is not a current I* member,

That's true, but it has just occurred to me, that of all the people involved
with the nomcom, the previous nomcom chair is in the unique position of being
able to be a candidate for a position currently being filled.

That's is perhaps something that we might want to consider.

kre

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:54:47 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Robert Elz wrote:

This is not true.  Committee members are explicitly excluded from
consideration.

However, admittedly, upon rereading, the wording could be construed as
ambiguous.  I think there's an interpretation possible that defines
"members" as the voting members and thus does not include liaisons (the
previous Chair is a liaison) or the current Chair for that matter.

This ambiguity was certainly not the intent and I will propose changes
to remove it.

Jim

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:58:42 +0700

Date:        Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:54:47 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | However, admittedly, upon rereading, the wording could be construed as
  | ambiguous.  I think there's an interpretation possible that defines
  | "members" as the voting members

That's how I would interpret it - I certainly wouldn't consider a liaison
as a member of an organisation (or not by virtue of being a liaison).

You didn't even consider the IETF chair a member of the IAB (that isn't
a liaison position) - so certainly you wouldn't be considering the IESG
IRTF, or RFC Editor liaisons as members of the IAB (nor the IAB liaison
to the IESG as an IESG member).   Liaisons certainly aren't members.

  | This ambiguity was certainly not the intent and I will propose changes
  | to remove it.

Yes, I know that...

The IAB and IESG liaisons aren't a problem, as they're always sitting
members, who aren't up for re-nomination.   I thought the current chair
was excluded too.   The past chair was the really odd case (perhaps
because that was added to things late in the game, it wasn't an original
inclusion).

kre