Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

[avri <avri@apocalypse.org>]

On this issue, I am not able to find us having reached any sort of
rough consensus.

I believe that in this case, we should not change the document
and should allow the current language to stand.

It should be noted, and has been, that although we are not
adding explicit language at this time, as the provision does exist
in the current language for the Nomcom to vote in any ad-hoc
rule they consider necessary, the exclusion of Liaisons from
particular discussions remains possible.

a.

On Monday, Jun 9, 2003, at 12:04 Asia/Seoul, Avri Doria wrote:

> 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.
>
> b. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion:
 actually c.
>    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.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>