On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:32 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
--On Thursday, January 08, 2015 11:08 -0500 Eric Burger
<eburger(_at_)cs(_dot_)georgetown(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:59 AM, John C Klensin
....
Likewise, no matter how legalistic we become, a person with an
agenda will have an agenda.
Unquestionably. And, again, I don't want to see us attempt
fine-grained rules in this area, only discussion and better
calibration of community expectations than, e.g., the second you
cite above provides.
For example and in the hope of being a bit less vague, I
personally see no need for liaisons to sit in on candidate
interviews, to see supposedly-confidential candidate
questionnaires, to see community input about particular
candidates, or to participate in Nomcom discussions or be
exposed to correspondence about particular candidates or
candidate choice rankings. And I see some disadvantages to the
quality and breadth of input the Nomcom is likely to receive to
their doing so. Do you disagree?
best,
john
As serving on nomcom in a liaison role in the past, I have to *agree* with you
1,000%. The liaisons should have a voice in the needs of their respective home
groups, but should not be deciding who nomcom serves up. That means they do not
have a burning need to be in the weeds of per-candidate nomcom stuff.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail