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

Hi, Joel,

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> 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.
>

There's certainly no reason why that feedback would HAVE to go through one
person, so, yeah, I think so.

The IAOC not being an approval body was the other reason I was OK with not
requiring the person the IAOC sent to the Nomcom to carry out several of
the liaison responsibilities, as well.

> 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.)
>

I wasn't thinking about that, but I like the side effect. Joel, that does
act as a safety valve, because the set of possible advisors from the IAOC
isn't bounded, the way the existing liaisons from confirming bodies are.

This is Spencer's Opinion, but after hanging around the Nomcom past chairs
(at Russ's request, while compiling the issues that fed into
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues/), I came
away with the feeling that the Nomcom is given really wide discretion,
because there is no Plan B if process rules got in the way of a Nomcom
delivering candidate slates.  The Prime Directive is "come up with slates
of confirmable candidates in a timely fashion and maintain confidentialty".
If that happens, mission accomplished.

That's why I thought adding advice for Nomcoms is OK, but adding hard
requirements probably isn't OK.

And that's why I thought it was best to encourage the Nomcom committee
members to request an advisor, in the usual way, and allow them to ask the
IAOC for suggestions, but not to require them to have an advisor, and not
to constrain who the IAOC might suggest. As Joel points out, the current
draft doesn't require the Nomcom to accept that suggestion.

And finding out whether Spencer's Opinion is anyone else's opinion, is why
we're having this conversation now :-)

Spencer

> 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
>>
>>
>