Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, January 07, 2015 09:03 -0800 "Murray S.
Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The first change I'd like to propose is that the IAOC Liaison
> to the NomCom be codified.  It's currently only an unwritten
> common practice.

I think that is fine.  However, while I continue to be generally
opposed to firm rules, I think the whole role of the liaisons
needs work.  Because of the potential for damaging existing
working relationships, the presence of the liaisons (or
particular people in liaison roles) may have chilling effects on
whether the Nomcom gets input and how candid that input actually
is. In addition, liaisons might well be assumed to be biased in
favor of retaining a status quo that works for them.  Some
assurances to the community that, e.g., liaisons were expected
to answer questions and provide general advice about roles but
that they would be at least as isolated from input about, and
internal Nomcom discussion of, specific candidates as ordinary
participants in the IETF might, in that regard, be both helpful
to a Nomcom trying to solicit input and to general impressions
about the integrity of the process.

    john