Re: [ietf-nomcom] draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-03.txt posted

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at wonderhamster.org>]

I'm going to take Joel's suggestion here, and remove the non-normative text 
that led to Russ's question, and to my question. Posting openlist-04 in a 
few minutes...

Thanks,

Spencer


> I suspect that this gets into cases that are better left unspecified, and 
> let the nomcom chair figure out what works depending upon the specific 
> situation.
>
> Frankly, if it is this close, the chair probably has some work to do to 
> anyway.
>
> If one starts creating hypotheticals, I think this is a case where the 
> liaisons would not get to vote.  (Note, my preference is not to write a 
> rule at all.)  Reasoning for how I would conclude if I had to:
> Imagine that the situation is such that a majority of the voting members 
> what to consider the candidate, but not a sufficient majority to overrule 
> the liaisons (otherwise there is no question, and no need for a policy.)
> Suppose that majority would indeed make that person their first choice.
> Then they, as the voting members of the nomcom, are clearly free to make 
> that choice.  And the liaisons should not be able to stop them from making 
> that choice.
>
> (The reason I don't think a rule is needed is that it is the chair's job 
> to ensure that the liaisons do not unduly influence the actual selection. 
> This case would clearly be an undue influence, and the chair would do what 
> is necessary to avoid the problem.)
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>
> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> > Hi, Robert,
> >
> > Thanks for catching my bad math. You understood what I meant to say - I 
> > was uncomfortable with a majority of the voting volunteers having one 
> > opinion, but that opinion being reversed when the non-voting members are 
> > polled, when the question is, "can we consider X as a nominee, without 
> > asking the community for input?"
> >
> > I am, of course, holding off on submitting openlist-04 to get more 
> > feedback on this, so others are invited to express opinions as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Spencer
> >
> >
> > >    Date:        Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:12:21 -0500
> > >    From:        "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at wonderhamster.org>
> > >    Message-ID:  <2AF59AFA1A37420994FD1D7C563CEB03 at china.huawei.com>
> > >
> > >  | My take on this is that the judgement needs to be the judgement of 
> > > the
> > >  | voting membership - I would be very uncomfortable with having a bunch 
> > > of
> > >  | non-voting members overrule the voting membership
> > >
> > > I don't think the latter is really possible, is it?   And we should make 
> > > sure
> > > we keep it that way - that is, the voting members of the nomcom are 
> > > greater
> > > in number (by a notable margin) than the sum of everyone else - so on 
> > > any
> > > issue, if the voting members are of a common view, that view will always
> > > prevail.
> > >
> > > The only time the liaison (etc) opinion will affect the result is when 
> > > the
> > > voting members are (close to) evenly divided - that is, effectively, 
> > > when
> > > the voting part of the nomcom is essentially undecided.   I see no harm 
> > > in
> > > that circumstance, and probably a benefit, in having the guidance from 
> > > the
> > > liaisons (assuming they're all more or less of one mind, if they're 
> > > split
> > > too, then a small majority amongst them isn't going to alter anything 
> > > except
> > > the most evenly divided voting member opinion) to make choices.
> > >
> > > The only issue that we have wanted to keep the liaisons (etc) out of is 
> > > the
> > > actual choice of candidates - and that only to avoid suspicion that
> > > appointed nomcom members are effectively running an old boys club. 
> > > Even
> > > there, as long as the voting membership size is of the order of twice 
> > > the
> > > number of liaisons, etc, which I think it is, the voting members are 
> > > always
> > > in control whenever they, or even most of them, want to be - so I don't
> > > think we need extra rules.
> > >
> > > Leave this is just another issue for each nomcom to specify internally 
> > > as
> > > part of its own procedural issues - they can decide who gets to vote on
> > > issues like this, if they need to (I think it's clear that everyone gets 
> > > a
> > > vote to decide the question, but if they desire, the voting members can
> > > vote as a block to exclude the others from voting on other issues).
> > >
> > > kre
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ietf-nomcom mailing list
> > ietf-nomcom at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> ietf-nomcom at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom