RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

[Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>]

Hi Jim,

On Mon, 26 May 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:

> Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 18:59:51 -0400
> From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
> To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>,
>      ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> Subject: RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
> 
> Donald,
> 
> If two voting nomcom members are discussing a candidate and the merits
> of that candidate to be selected by that nomcom as input to IETF nomcom
> process, should a Liaison participate in the discussion about that
> candidate pro or con?

I would say rarely. I don't recall any of the liaisons doing what I
would generally call "participating in discussion" in the sense of
arguing much.  But quite likely at some time one of them said something
like, when it seemed that candidate X was going to be on the short list
or the like, "I think X and IESG member Y with whom they will have to
work have had some difficulties about Z. You should consider asking each
of them about this." or something like that.

> I emphatically believe that if the Liaison does and was not asked to
> participate that is a conflict of interest?

Pffah. All you need to do is crank your conflict-of-interest sensitivity
up high enough and you can paralyze any organization. I was meaning to
reply to that effect to your other message wherin your go on and on
about "potential conflict of interest". Everyone in the IETF has
potential conflicts of interest. They may have company or academic
commitment to certain ideas or protocols. Why do we let authors make
comments in discussion about their very own drafts? Isn't that a clear
conflict of interest? Etc. Etc.

What about potential CONGRUITY of interest? How about the theory that 
Liaisons most probably want the IAB and IESG and the nomcom and IETF to 
work well and produce good results?

> The issue is would the simple text Brian suggested give recourse to
> prevent this problem from happening.

I don't like Brian's wording for two reasons: Because the exclusion of a
Liaison should be an extraordinary step while someone could read his
wording to mean you can do it anytime you like on a whim, and because it
makes it at the discretion of the chair while I think it should be a
nomcom decision.

> Example.  From situtation above.  Chair of Nomcom states:  Dear,
> Liaisons we are about to engage in a debate on the specific candidates
> and we feel your presence here is not required for this dicussion and
> would like to do this just with the voting members.
>
> What is wrong with the above?

If it's really true that "we" don't want the Liaisons, the nomcom can
vote to exclude them under the current draft or, indeed, vote to expell
them if there was a chronic problem. If it's not true that "we" don't
want the Liaisons, then the chair is lying.

Suppose your suggested exclusion happens. In the discussion, a member of
the nomcom says "The IESG consists of technical geniuses. I'm sure they
make all of their decisions in a purely logical fashion, probably using
the first order predicate calculus. Candidate X is a real whiz at logic
as well as being the world expert on facet Q of routing. True, candidate
X only speaks Aramaic and doesn't seem to have any charisma, but since
the IESG is a techncial body, I'm sure they are the best candidate."  
Wouldn't it be OK for the IESG Liaison to butt in and point out that,
while technical competance is required, the bulk of the job an every AD
is interpersonal relations? That the IESG actually doesn't decide
everything using the first order predicate calculus?

> /jim

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       dee3@torque.pothole.com
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com