Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members - correction

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Monday, Jun 9, 2003, at 06:34 America/Montreal, Robert Elz wrote:
> 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?

	I believe the notional difference is that the liaisons are currently
serving on either IAB or IESG (or ISoc BoT), whilst the past Nomcom 
Chair
is NOT serving on either IAB or IESG (or ISoc BoT) during the time of 
the
current Nomcom.

- I'm indifferent to whether the past chair is treated the same or 
differently.
- I'm also indifferent as to whether the ISoc BoT liaison is treated 
the same
  or differently (on the assumption that the ISoc BoT liaison is not 
concurrently
  an IAB or IESG member).

> 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.

	I would not object to such a clarification of the definition of the
Past Nomcom Chair, since my understanding of existing practice is 
consistent
with the intent you describe in the quoted paragraph above.

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com