Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

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

As one of the people who debated this, I can live with
Avri's "ruling". 

   Brian

avri wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> You ask if this is final.  As with any consensus call, if
> lots of people jump up and claim that I got the consensus wrong,
> then no, it is not final.  However, I feel we did not reach
> consensus at this time and I do not believe that more discussion
> at this point will get us to a consensus point.  I appreciate
> that there are people who agree with you, but we seem to have
> as many who do not. And as you say, an individual Nomcom is
> empowered to deal with this issue should it desire to.
> 
> I have a strong pull to get this doc into WG last call and
> into the IESG hands as soon as possible and so, would like to
> considered the issue closed for this pass.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 23:44 Asia/Seoul, Bound, Jim wrote:
> 
> > 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.