Re: [ietf-nomcom] NomCom 2023 Mid-Term Vacancy Eligibility Clarifications and Questions

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,

I will cut this down to the advisor question, but I think that your point of "could this person have disproportionate influence on the outcome" is a good razor to apply here.

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023, at 11:43, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> 3. Are advisors considered to be members?
>>
>> My interpretation is that advisors are not members.
>>
>> Note that the chair of the previous NomCom is strictly defined as an advisor. Consequently, they are not ineligible by a strict interpretation of the RFC.  However, I would suggest that it would be a very bad idea to consider a previous NomCom chair as being eligible for any position.
>
> I have no idea how you came to this interpretation.  They vote, they 
> participate - they are members.

Cutting this down to the advisor question, which is probably not relevant (Rich is the only advisor presently involved in this NomCom).

The lack of a clear definition of "member" compounds the issue.

Section 4.9 says:

> An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the invitation that resulted in the appointment.

That creates considerable uncertainty for me.

One interpretation says that if the duties do not include voting, then the advisor cannot vote.  That interpretation takes the text you quoted below as allowing advisors to be granted the ability to vote (for procedural matters),but it does not require that they be given a vote once appointed.

The other interpretation gives advisors all the rights ascribed to members.

Personally, I would be unhappy if an advisor was brought in for a small matter, but then insisted on voting on procedural issues and also insisted on exercising a right to engage in deliberations (see Section 5.9).

Either way, I think that it is clearly better to consider advisors to be ineligible in this specific case.  I'm less sure about the general case, especially for advisors who have very strictly constrained roles, but we can debate that when it comes to revising RFC 8713 (i.e., later).

>> The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not vote on the selection of 
>> candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the committee 
>> unless otherwise specified in this document.

I admit to missing this text.  Thankfully, this question is academic in this case (whether or not Rich is an advisor or not, he has indicated no intention of running for IETF chair).  

Again, this only highlights the need for a more thorough process document.