Re: DISCUSSION: define the role of a liaison

[Matt Holdrege <matt.holdrege@verizon.net>]

At 03:43 AM 3/14/2002, Robert Elz wrote:
>     Date:        Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:15:54 -0500 (EST)
>     From:        James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
>     Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.43.0203131551300.24968-100000@three.elistx.com>
>
>   | So it would seem the liaisons should either be voting members or not,
>   | and we should make this clear.
>
> Of course they're not voting members, and shouldn't be, if that had ever
> been intended, that's what would have been said.
>
> But I also don't know what the problem is supposed to be - the nomcom
> chair is also not a voting member, and yet participates in all the
> discussions, etc - perhaps the nomcom members might like to exclude the
> chair sometimes too.
>
> If there's been a problem that actually needs fixing, I'd like someone to
> (at a minimum) propose some language that would actually fix the problem
> that was actually encountered (better if the actual problem can be explained
> as well, but that might not be possible).
>
> Without that, do nothing at all.

I agree, but we should at least acknowledge that some NOMCOM members may 
feel pressed upon by a strong liaison member. We can't do anything about 
that. NOMCOM members must consider all sorts of data points and if they 
allow themselves to be unduly influenced by a liaison member, then can be 
unduly influenced by anything.

The benefit of the liaisons outweigh any negative influence they might 
bring. It's up to the voting members to sift through the data and to vote 
their conscience.