Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members - correction

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:10:08 +0900
    From:        Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
    Message-ID:  <3EE416B0.6060104@acm.org>

I'm not sure I have an opinion on this one, though I would
probably lean (slightly) towards ...

  | a. Do nothing.

But I have a question that applies equally to the other two options:

  |      Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair)

Why would the past chair be treated differently here?   Surely anyone
who isn't a full nomcom member could be asked to be absent in the
appropriate circumstances?

If you add language like is proposed in either (b) or (c), then that
is essentially declaring the past chair to be a full (non-voting) nomcom
member - basically the same as the current chair (except not actually
chairing the meetings).   If that is really the intent, then simply
define the past chair that way, so that position isn't included in with
"liaisons and advisors" to start with, and doesn't need to be explicitly
called out as an exception here.

But I had always assumed that the past chair was added as an information
passing mechanism - to help with continuity, and to provide advice as
to how things had been handled before.   None of that requires continuous
attendance through every discussion.

kre