Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom

Eliot Lear <> Sat, 10 January 2015 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFE91A8F50 for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:02:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0D3GqhLDg6r6 for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:02:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 091221A8A99 for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:02:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2874; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1420876946; x=1422086546; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=EnWBmOG1nWquUToVhaHyVBUzH2mLitgL/bue5nJQ4SY=; b=N0HCp5rS09itvZBieUwGA069WfiZ1TzVax9O0uELKZtF7ME4VOhzDPke HdofdkftxDu/eDHyNwo0Hqn/tBrQ2+GrlMS6gfrun1prCwowtECKYM7nY FmMruCuYqKGYgxTf1KDRDqqcti7nChWMJbTOV3wyHmqg5NQQHxA6dUwmZ 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,735,1413244800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="306090666"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2015 08:02:24 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0A82N0X003742; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 08:02:24 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:02:23 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Richardson <>, ietf <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kpvKC7waFn9EB9tbFosciQFmHk1n1Ja6q"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 08:02:28 -0000


On 1/9/15 7:20 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Michael StJohns <> wrote:
>     >> For example and in the hope of being a bit less vague, I personally
>     >> see no need for liaisons to sit in on candidate interviews, to see
>     >> supposedly-confidential candidate questionnaires, to see community
>     >> input about particular candidates, or to participate in Nomcom
>     >> discussions or be exposed to correspondence about particular
>     >> candidates or candidate choice rankings.  And I see some disadvantages
>     >> to the quality and breadth of input the Nomcom is likely to receive to
>     >> their doing so. Do you disagree?
>     > Speaking only to the above, during the Nomcom I ran, I found it useful
>     > to pair up the interviewers and used every resource available.  That
> I did the same thing (as did Allison and Matt), and had the same problem
> getting enough interviewer resources.  Had I not had the liasons, a number of
> interviews might not have been possible.
> I want to emphasize that I never planned to have the liason lead or take
> notes from an interview; but during nomcom discussion there might have been
> one or two times when the liason had a memory that helped clarify or put into
> better context what was said.

It seems to me that pragmatism needs to be kept in mind.  For one, I'd
like to know if there has been an actual problem where someone (or
better yet someoneS) has actually withheld commentary because of risk of
retribution due to a liaison reading the content.  On top of that, I
wonder if NOMCOM chairs could comment if they ever felt that a liaison
behaved inappropriately.  That is- is there really a problem to fix?  If
not, let's please not add process to deal with nonexistent problems.  If
something becomes a problem we have the means to address it.