RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Avri,

It was Brian's suggested text that did not reach consensus not mine,my
wording was too strong.  Is this the final decision, if so I am fine
with that because each nomcom can get input that they have this option.
From watching the problem statement list I am now totally convinced this
wording should be part of the rules and stated clearly.  There were
people that supported some form of text change for this though, so I am
not the only one wanting this change.

Regards,

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avri [mailto:avri@apocalypse.org] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:15 PM
> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
> 
> 
> 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>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>