RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Donald,

I guess the view is how one views confidentiality.  I have no comment on
my nomcom experience one way or the other it would be improper and it is
fine if we view it differently.

> > 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
> 
> I have never encoutered any problem, as a member of serveral 
> NOMCOMs or chair of one, with Liaisons. Not only no undue 
> influence on selections but even no problems when discussion 
> touched on the the actual individual IAB or IESG member who 
> is the Liaison. (Since how well the IAB or IESG members will 
> work together is a NOMCOM consideration, there can be 
> occasion to discuss whether a candidate would work well with 
> someone who is a Liaison.)

Good to hear you have not.  The point is that there is a potential for
"conflict of interest".  The potential should be removed completely by
the simple statement that the nomcom may ask Liaisons not be part of
certain deliberations.  This is prudent.

> 
> Liaisons are bound by NOMCOM confidentiality. The NOMCOM 
> should expect, so as to get the maximum benefit from the 
> Liaisons, that all its conversations to be with the Liaisons 
> present except in VERY unusual circumstances.

This is not the point at all so I will not respond.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> This is nonsense.

The above means nothing to me? No comment.

> One of the reasons the IAB and IESG Liaison 
> are present is so that their experience as to how the IAB and 
> IESG actually operate can be called on. True, former members 
> could provide some of that. But the Liaison has the most 
> current view and because of that facet of their role they 
> have and should have more influence on some NOMCOM decisions 
> than the average community member.

Brian convinced me that Liaisons should be present for the reasons you
state, and will take the high ground on that view.  But, Liaisons could
be present during deliberations when a Liaison opinion when not asked in
the heat of debate could sway a decision.  That is a conflict of
interest and we should have in our proceedings a statement to prevent
that problem if it is deemed to be a potentail problem.

> 
> It is a bad move to change the rules to make it appear that 
> exclusion of the Liaisons would in any way be an ordinary or 
> normal thing. I see no reason to make it be at the discretion 
> of the chair. But there is no harm is a brief section saying 
> that they can be excluded under extraordinary circumstances 
> by the NOMCOM committee.

I don't care how it is said but only that there is a clause to ask them
to leave the room under circumstances where there could be a conflict of
interest.  And the text is very clear.

Regards,
/jim

> 
> Donald
> 
> > 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>
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>