Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 09/01/2015 11:30, Bob Hinden wrote:
> The IAOC and ISOC Board have given their liaisons similar instructions.  
> 
> Bob
> 
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> For several years now, the IESG and IAB have given their liaisons careful instructions.  Each year, those instructions are reviewed with feedback from the previous year liaison.  In my opinion, this is the right place for the annual review of the instructions.  However, I do think that there can be a bit more guidance in BCP 10 that applies to all of the liaisons.  I have a few thoughts:
>>
>> 1.  The liaison is expected to act in the best interest of the IETF.
>>
>> 2.  During NomCom calls and meetings, the liaison is expected to represent the views of the leadership body rather than personal opinion.
>>
>> 3.  The liaison may provide personal feedback to NomCom, but they should only do so using communication channels available to all IETF participants.
>>
>> To me, these are consistent with the language that is already present in RFC 3777:
>>
>>     Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective
>>     organizations during the deliberations of the committee.  They
>>     should provide information as requested or when they believe it
>>     would be helpful to the committee.
>>
>> Russ

That's all good. However, I think the Nomcom (Chair) needs some guidance,
even if it's a very general statement that the liaisons should have
sufficient access to Nomcom materials and discussions so as to execute
all their duties under http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-4.7 .

After all, the only restriction placed on liaisons is a single line:
"Liaisons do not vote on the selection of candidates."

   Brian