Re: Follow-up from NomCom advisor discussion

[Mary B <[e-mail]>]

I totally agree - that's how it was when I was Nomcom chair and how I
personally think it should be.  If liaisons have input on nominees, that
should go into the tool as feedback from a community member.   And,
depending upon the nature of the feedback, recuse themselves from being
present during discussions.

Regards,
Mary.


On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:36 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Melinda,
>
> > On Jul 23, 2020, at 11:37 PM, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/23/20 6:14 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> >> That said, if the NomCom were to decide that the procedure for
> >> choosing IETF chair was to blindfold each person and have them pin
> >> something to pictures of nominees, akin to the children's party game
> >> of pin the tail on the donkey, I can see why liaisons might want to
> >> have a say in that.  That might be better dealt with by including
> >> that in a report to a confirming body.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > I was IAB liaison a few years ago and stayed out (or tried to stay
> > out) of the decision-making process.  It seems to me to be important
> > to avoid creating processes that are effectively closed and/or uniform,
> > and nomcom is one of the most obvious places in the IETF where that
> > can happen.  I think it's valuable to give them space to breathe
> > and to deal with any gross irregularities during the confirmation
> > process.
> >
>
> I agree.
>
> I think about this as liaisons are there to answer questions about the
> group they are from (and report back on the process to their groups), but
> otherwise should not be speaking.   Otherwise, they are having an undue
> influence on the NomCom process.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>