Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom

[Eric Burger <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:32 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> --On Thursday, January 08, 2015 11:08 -0500 Eric Burger
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:59 AM, John C Klensin
>> ....
> 
>> Likewise, no matter how legalistic we become, a person with an
>> agenda will have an agenda.
> 
> Unquestionably.  And, again, I don't want to see us attempt
> fine-grained rules in this area, only discussion and better
> calibration of community expectations than, e.g., the second you
> cite above provides.
> 
> 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?
> 
> best,
>    john

As serving on nomcom in a liaison role in the past, I have to *agree* with you 1,000%. The liaisons should have a voice in the needs of their respective home groups, but should not be deciding who nomcom serves up. That means they do not have a burning need to be in the weeds of per-candidate nomcom stuff.