Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:04:14 +0900

Having read through this thread carefully, I am not sure I see where
the consensus is falling yet.

If I read correctly I see several positions:

a. Do nothing. The provisions in the current document are sufficient
to allow the Nomcom to deal with a liaison who misbehaving or with
any conflict of interest that may arise.

b. add the following as suggested by Jim:

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

b. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion:

    Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested
     to temporarily leave a discussion by a majority of the voting
      members of the NomCom.

    (no one suggested this wording but something like it seems
     to be suggested by some of the comments.  Instead of majority,
     implying a vote, the condition could be one of consensus. )

As is often the case on this list, too few people have spoken up
on the issue.  I would like to resolve this issue by the end of
the week.

So please speak up on which of the 3 choices you prefer.

Thanks

a.

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:10:08 +0900

One of the opinions come in,
and showed me that 2 choices had the same
identifier.

So the second b is corrected to c, though b2 works as well.

thanks
a.

---

c. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion:

Thanks

a.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:34:57 +0700

Date:        Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:10:08 +0900
    From:        Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

I'm not sure I have an opinion on this one, though I would
probably lean (slightly) towards ...

  | a. Do nothing.

But I have a question that applies equally to the other two options:

  |      Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair)

Why would the past chair be treated differently here?   Surely anyone
who isn't a full nomcom member could be asked to be absent in the
appropriate circumstances?

If you add language like is proposed in either (b) or (c), then that
is essentially declaring the past chair to be a full (non-voting) nomcom
member - basically the same as the current chair (except not actually
chairing the meetings).   If that is really the intent, then simply
define the past chair that way, so that position isn't included in with
"liaisons and advisors" to start with, and doesn't need to be explicitly
called out as an exception here.

But I had always assumed that the past chair was added as an information
passing mechanism - to help with continuity, and to provide advice as
to how things had been handled before.   None of that requires continuous
attendance through every discussion.

kre

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:10:41 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking as Editor:

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Robert Elz wrote:

The Past Chair role is special because it has a responsibility to the
ISOC President.  Although the NOMCOM serves at the pleasure of the
community, the NOMCOM Chair serves at the pleasure of the ISOC
President.  The Past Chair has the role of watching the process on
behalf of the ISOC President -- particularly the current Chair.

The ISOC President is the final arbiter of any issues that may be
escalated for resolution outside of the NOMCOM itself.  The Past Chair
is the path to that final arbitration for NOMCOM voting members.

Even so, as you suggest we could make the Past Chair be something other
than an Advisor.  I'm not opposed to this and would consider such a
change an editorial one, but your mileage may vary.

Jim

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:32:15 -0400

I prefer (a).
I do not object to (b) or (c).

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:38:11 -0400

> appropriate circumstances?

	I believe the notional difference is that the liaisons are currently
serving on either IAB or IESG (or ISoc BoT), whilst the past Nomcom 
Chair
is NOT serving on either IAB or IESG (or ISoc BoT) during the time of 
the
current Nomcom.

- I'm indifferent to whether the past chair is treated the same or 
differently.
- I'm also indifferent as to whether the ISoc BoT liaison is treated 
the same
   or differently (on the assumption that the ISoc BoT liaison is not 
concurrently
   an IAB or IESG member).

> called out as an exception here.

	I would not object to such a clarification of the definition of the
Past Nomcom Chair, since my understanding of existing practice is 
consistent
with the intent you describe in the quoted paragraph above.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:19:12 +0200

Small preference for b, but a or c work too.

   Brian

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:15:29 +0900

On this issue, I am not able to find us having reached any sort of
rough consensus.

I believe that in this case, we should not change the document
and should allow the current language to stand.

It should be noted, and has been, that although we are not
adding explicit language at this time, as the provision does exist
in the current language for the Nomcom to vote in any ad-hoc
rule they consider necessary, the exclusion of Liaisons from
particular discussions remains possible.

a.

> b. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion:
  actually c.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>
>