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

send questions to clarify  the IAOC view on qualifications for an IAOC seat or about anything that was not covered by the
IAOC’s statement to the noncom (i.e. something they forgot like actual travel commitment )

Scott

> On Aug 9, 2017, at 8:42 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.
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 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