Re: [ietf-nomcom] BCP 10 Update, adding an IAOC Advisor to the Nominating Committee

On 10/08/2017 12:42, Joel Halpern wrote:
> As the IAOC is not an approval body, I have trouble seeing why the 
> nomcom would need to send anything to the IAOC.  Even if the Nomcom had 
> operational feedback from the community about the IAOC as a body, it 
> seems to me that the advisor would not be the means to send such back.
> 
> I seem to be in the minority, but I like calling this something other 
> than liaison, because of the set of roles that apply to liaisons, but 
> not to this IAOC suggested information source.
> 
> I mildly prefer Spencer's current formulation that the nomcom asks for 
> the advisor.  The factor that strikes me is that this way the nomcom and 
> its chair can ensure that they are comfortable with the appointee. 
> (That is not their right with the liaisons, as those individuals are 
> responsible to their providing bodies.)

That's what I wanted to say, but said in a confusing way.

    Brian
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 8/9/17 7:03 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:agmalis@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Brian,
>>
>>     “Liaison” as an actual person can be one-way, I’ve often seen the
>>     case where there are two liaison individuals between a pair of
>>     organizations, one for each direction.
>>
>>
>> Well, I think Andy is right here (the IAB certainly appoints IETF 
>> liaisons to other SDOs as directional), but that's side-stepping the 
>> more interesting question, which is not what we call this role, but 
>> whether we expect Nomcom to send anything back to the IAOC via the (the 
>> draft calls it) advisor.
>>
>> And that question may not need to affect the resulting text 
>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-4.9 says
>>
>>     An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the
>>     invitation that resulted in the appointment.
>>
>> which is pretty darned broad), but if it might affect the resulting 
>> text, that would be good to know sooner, rather than later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Andy
>>
>>
>>     On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>>     <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>>
>>     wrote:
>>
>>         (Adjusted the CC)
>>
>>         On 10/08/2017 06:48, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>         > Spencer -
>>         >
>>         > The attempt to avoid the term liaison is not working well for me.
>>
>>         'Liaison' implies 2-way communication; 'advisor' implies 1-way
>>         comunication.
>>         I think we need to decide which we want.
>>
>>              Brian
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         ietf-nomcom mailing list
>>         ietf-nomcom@ietf.org <mailto:ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     ietf-nomcom mailing list
>>     ietf-nomcom@ietf.org <mailto:ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ietf-nomcom mailing list
>> ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
> 