RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

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

Geoff,

> 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. 

I don't have a foundation other than there is the potential for a
conflict of interest if there is no way under any circumstances to
remove the Liaisons from the room.  Please don't read into the word
remove it is a valid word, it is like accountability, fired, hired, etc.


What I believe or feel or what you believe or feel is not relative.
What the quesiton is objectively is there a potential for a conflict of
interest?  I say there is?  That is all nothing more or nothing less.

>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

Again I will not comment on my experience other than there was bad and
good, and room for improvement.  And I think much has improved as a note
since that event.

But this is not the point of my input.

> 
> 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.

Well I assume this is rhetorical comment and not to me from what I sent
to Nomcom. Rhetorically in response I can say at a high level I trust no
authority completely ahywhwere, and believe it wise to remove all
conflict of interest in such bodies whenever possible.  I am making a
suggestion to remove a potential.  If you would like to hear my personal
views of the IETF process be glad to do this with you over a beer or ice
tea, but not part of this process, I do not see the added value to this
conversation.

> 
> 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.

What has been done is not known because it cannot be fully disclosed.
If someone had done something dishonorable you would have no right to
even discuss it here.  That is the good thing about the NOMCOM
deliberations.  

THere is the potential for conflict of interest.  Period.  

Regards,
/jim

> 
> 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>
> 
> 
> 
>