RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

[Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>]

Jim,

A liaison is neither a delegate nor  a representative, and while I would be 
more
inclined to sympathize  with your proposition if such were the case, given that
the liaison role is one more akin to a constrained messenger, then I find your
fears of collective interest being exercised upon the nomcom by the IESG or
the IAB completely without foundation. Given that I was chairing that Nomcom
when you were a member, I can also offer the observation that I saw at no
point in time the exercising of IESG influence on the Nomcom, nor IAB
influence.. Having been an IAB liaison myself subsequently, again at
no point in time were the duties of the liaison during the
Nomcom's consideration period being called upon  beyond the
conveying of explicit queries generated by the Nomcom
and their corresponding responses

I find it worrisome that there is this unfounded and growing level of
mistrust being cast as an undercurrent in many of these considerations,
where various bodies are being cast in a role of potential conspirators,
and that their influence should be countered through the provision
of explicit rules and provisions. What worries me is that when you
start to create the frameworks and mechanisms to counter such
possible problems you also start to create an environment of
mutual distrust, and that is a place I'm sure noone wants to head.

At every point in the Nomcom processes there is a point where rules
and documented process must give way to community trust in
good judgement, as exercised by the chair, as exercised by the
members, and as exercised by the liaisons.  For that reason I see this
particular area (participation of liaisons in the Nomcom) as being one
where explicit provisions are going to find it hard to achieve the necessary
balance, while the judgement of the nomcom itself appears to me to have
been entirely appropriate to date.

regards,

   Geoff

At 02:40 PM 23/05/2003 -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
> The NOMCOM can need at times an entity without IESG and IAB involvement.
> Having served on a NOMCOM the example I will use is when the NOMCOM
> wants to discuss privately and confidentially the issues of keep or
> replace IESG or IAB members to keep that NOMCOM private conversation
> from everyone except the NOMCOM members.  I can think of others but that
> is what I mean't by keeping the Government out of the voting booth.  I
> agree with Brian why they should be present.  This also gives input to
> the NOMCOM if an IESG or IAB member is participating to much in the
> defense or denial of candidates or existing members to get them out of
> the room because they really should not be doing that other than any
> other IETF community member as input to the NOMCOM.  Bottom line IESG or
> IAB should not have any extra or more influence on the actual decision
> than anyone else that NOMCOM will speak with in the community.
>
> I think the proposed wording would fix this and very minor enhancement.
> Then I am done here with my input on this one.
>
> Regards,
> /jim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 1:29 PM
> > To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> > Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
> >
> >
> > I disagree.  I believe that many of the reasons for having
> > the liaisons at
> > all are impossible if they are excluded from most
> > conversations. I do not believe that there is any damage from
> > having the liaisons in the
> > room.  I find your analogy misleading.
> >
> > I have not significant objection to the alternative proposal
> > of giving the
> > chair explicit power to exclude the liaisons from selected
> > discussions.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel M. Halpern
> >
> > At 12:30 AM 5/23/2003 -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > >In the current document it is not clear totally to me that
> > the Liaisons
> > >should play a more limited role than currently stated, and
> > this should
> > >be the case.  The IAB and IESG Liaisons should only be
> > present during
> > >NOMCOM deliberations when requested and should not be part of the
> > >NOMCOM discourse, unless they are required for clarfication as
> > >Liaisons. Having the Liaisons in the room with the NOMCOM is like
> > >having the Government with you in the voting booth, which is
> > not good.
> > >
> > >Thoughts?
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >/jim
> > >
> > >----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > >manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>