On 12/12/2011 10:31 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2011, at 03:17, William Drake wrote:
>
>> And it's also not obvious to me, as I've said privately to Evan, that it's the proper role of a liaison from one group to come on the other's list and launch heated exchanges about the latter's positions and internal dynamics.  I have never jumped in on the ALAC list to object to things I find objectionable, even when the temptation's strong—the recent argument over WHOIS, in which it became abundantly clear that the ALAC's stance is not a consensus position among At Large members—was a case in point.  I don't see this as being the job, but maybe that's just me…
>
> I tend to support the notion of active Liaisons.  I do not think that it is just a process role, but is a role that allows to the views of another group and at least one of its members  to be included in the fullness of discussion.  Look at the successful way most ALAC Liaisons have worked with the GNSO, or the way all Liaisons participate in the Board as if they were members of the Board - except in voting.  I think a liaison needs to be a fully participative role.  It is certainly what I expect from the people in the role.
>
> avri

I do too. Even (especially?) with regard the merit of positions. There 
is a little more diplomacy to be weaved by the liaison, of course, and 
(s)he needs to be thick skinned, but it can (and should if you ask me) 
be done.

Nicolas