RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

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

Avri,

That's fine thanks for the response.

/jim

 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: avri [mailto:avri@apocalypse.org] 
>Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:57 AM
>To: Bound, Jim
>Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
>Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
>
>
>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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>
>>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>>
>
>