Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

[James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>]

On Fri, 23 May 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

    James M Galvin wrote:
    >
    > Speaking personally, I agree with Brian except that I don't think we
    > need explicit text.

    Since the Nomcom chair has explicit discretion for undocumented
    pieces of process, that is strictly true, but some people seem
    to want it written.

Still speaking as editor:

Actually, the discretion is with the committee as a whole, not the
Chair.  This was changed at least one RFC ago.


Quoting from the document:

  5. Nominating Committee Operation

     1.   All rules and special circumstances not otherwise specified are
          at the discretion of the committee.

          Exceptional circumstances will occasionally arise during the
          normal operation of the nominating committee.  This rule is
          intended to foster the continued forward progress of the
          committee.

          Any member of the committee may propose a rule for adoption by
          the committee.  The rule must be approved by all members of the
          committee according to its established voting mechanism.

          All members of the committee should consider whether the
          exception is worthy of mention in the next revision of this
          document and follow-up accordingly.




    > As I recall, suggesting that certain members can be excluded then opens
    > the discussion for defining the appropriate criteria, and that is a very
    > slippery slope.

    Indeed, and I would leave that to the Nomcom chair's discretion, and
    *not* attempt to write down anything more than "The IAB and IESG
    liaisons may be requested to temporarily leave the conference calls,
    at the chair's discretion."

With the above in mind -- and generalizing the principle -- would the
following be acceptable to you:

    Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested
    to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion.

I left it as Chair because I do believe it is reasonable to explicitly
give this discretion to the Chair.

I added advisors because it seems sensible to apply the principle
explicitly to all parties who are not voting members.

The exception for the Past Chair is necessary because the position is
considered an "advisor" in the text.

Jim