RE: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process)

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you all for your advice regarding advisors.
I'm putting discussion of advisors on the agenda for my initial NomCom meeting.

<attempt at humor>I'm tempted to add [e-mail] as an additional advisor -- but not one with access to confidential info.</attempt at humor>
Barbara

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Resnick
> 
> On 15 Jul 2020, at 12:57, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> 
> > is there something I missed where the chair said that was happening
> > (Henrik would be able to vote on procedures or candidates?)
> 
> It sounded from the chair's note of Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:08:28 +0000 that she
> thought that the assorted additional folks in question were already
> appointed as advisors. Sam pointed out that if they were advisors, they
> would have the ability to vote on procedures, and therefore their
> appointment as advisors ought to be approved by the voting members.
> (Nobody thought they could vote on candidates, but only that they would be
> part of the deliberations.) After Sam's note, Mary, Victor, and you replied
> with defenses of Henrik being the tools advisor. That seemed curious, since
> none of you addressed Sam's point, and nobody ever suggested that Henrik
> shouldn't be tools advisor, which is why I replied.
> 
> pr
> 
> >> On Jul 15, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Nobody objected to Henrik (or anyone else) being the Tools Advisor,
> >> or to any of the other non-8713-listed advisors being on NomCom. The
> >> only concern is that the voting members and the 8713-listed
> >> non-voting members need to explicitly decide whether or not they will
> >> (a) participate in deliberations and (b) be able to vote on
> >> procedural matters of the NomCom. The chair can't simply add
> >> additional advisors who can vote to change the procedures of the
> >> NomCom without the approval of the voting members of the NomCom.
> >>
> >> pr
> >>
> >> On 15 Jul 2020, at 11:27, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:09 AM Scott O. Bradner <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >> Henrik has been tools advisor just about forever - well he was the
> >> tools advisor back when I was on the IESG  - he came with the job as
> >> nomcom chair - I do not recall that previous chairs specifically
> >> appointed him he was just "it"
> >>
> >> but the key point is in the citation you provide " advisor to
> >> participate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee"
> >>
> >> the tools advisor does not "participate in some or all of the
> >> deliberations of the committee"
> >> so is not covered under RFC 8713 section 4.3 - the chair has the
> >> power to appoint advisors that do not participate in some or all of
> >> the deliberations of the committee as long as the advisor has minimal
> >> contact with the confidential information the nomcom collects (and
> >> Henrik can be trusted with confidential information in any case
> >> - he has been there & done that
> >>
> >> I say 'move on, there is nothing to do here'
> >>
> >>
> >> Having worked with him on Nomcom, I have no concerns with his
> >> involvement as a tools advisor.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Victor K
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> >>> On Jul 15, 2020, at 10:00 AM, Mary B <[e-mail]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm very puzzled over the concern about Henrik as Tools Advisor.  He
> >>> was tools advisor way back when I was Nomcom chair 2009-2010 and I
> >>> know it goes back at least to the one prior.   He has been an
> >>> essential part of the process from that perspective. But, he did not
> >>> (and I assume still does not) participate in any deliberations at
> >>> all and as I recall he actually can't see any of the comments input
> >>> by the community.   But, his role has a dramatic impact on the
> >>> ability of the nomcom to review the community input in the form
> >>> other than a bunch of emails  and of course, his work also has
> >>> provided the community a nice tool so that we can provide that
> >>> input.
> >>>
> >>> As far as other advisors, I will add that I do think it's important
> >>> that their roles are clear cut from the outset in terms of the scope
> >>> being providing input into the specific roles for the organization
> >>> they represent or in the case of Suresh on process aspects.   There
> >>> had been Nomcoms where liaisons were more active, which I disagree
> >>> with, but it is up to the specific Nomcom in terms of how they take
> >>> input.
> >>>
> >>> If the concern is that there will be lots of folks that can see your
> >>> input to the Nomcom, you can always provide input anonymously by
> >>> contacting the chair or a Nomcom member with whom you're
> comfortable
> >>> sharing.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Mary..
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:11 PM Samuel Weiler <[e-mail]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I needed the tools advisor in place when I started the volunteer
> >>>> process.
> >>>
> >>> .....
> >>>
> >>>> I also asked Suresh to be an advisor, as permitted by RFC 8713.
> >>>
> >>> My read of RFC8713 section 4.3 is that you are not premitted to
> >>> appoint advisors on your own.  The relevant text is:
> >>>
> >>>     Any committee member may propose the addition of an advisor to
> >>>     participate in some or all of the deliberations of the
> >>> committee.
> >>>     The addition must be approved by the committee according to its
> >>>     established voting mechanism.
> >>>
> >>> I do not object to you having sought advice from Henrik and Suresh
> >>> up to this point, but, as I wrote this morning, I hope that you will
> >>> propose these new advisors to the NomCom once it is seated and give
> >>> the NomCom (excluding the two proposed additions) the opportunity to
> >>> approve the additions (or not, as they deem appropriate).
> >>>
> >>> I look forward to your confirmation that you will take this path.
> >>>
> >>> -- Sam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> From: Samuel Weiler
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 6:46 AM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, S Moonesamy wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> There is a special past-past chair advisor.  The explanation for
> >>>>>> that is "this year is so strange".  Making such an appointment
> >>>>>> was not discussed during the evaluation of the document which was
> >>>>>> published as RFC 8788.  There isn't any information about which
> >>>>>> rule(s) was used to make that appointment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The list at [1] also includes Henrik as a tools team advisor.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One might presume that the NomCom chair intends to propose both
> >>>>> additional advisors to the NomCom according to the usual process
> >>>>> in section
> >>>>> 4.3 of RFC8713.  It is odd to see them announced before the voting
> >>>>> memebers of NomCom are seated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is interesting how the number of non-voting NomCom members
> has
> >>>>> grown over time.  This list has nine(!) non-voting members, and
> >>>>> that is before the voting members have been seated and potentially
> >>>>> added more.
> >>>>> NomCom 2019 had 8.  NomCom 2018 had 7.  NomCom 2017 had 6.
> >>>>> NomComs 2016 and 2015 each had only 5. [2]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If I were a voting member of this NomCom, I would be concerned
> >>>>> about being overwhelmed by advisors, particularly since the
> >>>>> advisors get a vote on procedural matters, including the removal
> >>>>> of voting NomCom members..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- Sam
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]
> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.i
> >>>>> etf.org_nomcom_2020_&d=DwIBAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8s
> >>>>>
> c8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=gkzPWOkPAQyFQsbmEULkAewFDOyYuyMoKwrrVakfltE&
> s=8yKW
> >>>>> gNsk2Epq1ZhvoSr6J2ABEbMfJAtdAqt_pgaroNE&e=
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [2] n.b. I'm looking at the lists at [1].  It is possible these
> >>>>> NomComs added advisors that are not listed.  I'm pretty sure
> >>>>> NomCom
> >>>>> 2015 added Henrik as an advisor.
> 
> 
> --
> Pete Resnick https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.episteme.net_&d=DwIBAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-
> 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=gkzPWOkPAQyFQsbmEULkAewFDOyYuyMoKwrrVakflt
> E&s=BbE9_ilXns8O1nds-mZq0_gNF-6Y7oYu-z0FWo9zmcQ&e=
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best