Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members - correction

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Small preference for b, but a or c work too.

   Brian

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> One of the opinions come in,
> and showed me that 2 choices had the same
> identifier.
> 
> So the second b is corrected to c, though b2 works as well.
> 
> thanks
> a.
> 
> ---
> 
> Having read through this thread carefully, I am not sure I see where
> the consensus is falling yet.
> 
> If I read correctly I see several positions:
> 
> a. Do nothing. The provisions in the current document are sufficient
> to allow the Nomcom to deal with a liaison who misbehaving or with
> any conflict of interest that may arise.
> 
> b. add the following as suggested by Jim:
> 
>      Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested
>       to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion.
> 
> c. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion:
> 
>      Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested
>       to temporarily leave a discussion by a majority of the voting
>        members of the NomCom.
> 
>      (no one suggested this wording but something like it seems
>       to be suggested by some of the comments.  Instead of majority,
>       implying a vote, the condition could be one of consensus. )
> 
> As is often the case on this list, too few people have spoken up
> on the issue.  I would like to resolve this issue by the end of
> the week.
> 
> So please speak up on which of the 3 choices you prefer.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> a.