Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

I think there are two major differences between NomCom and recall.

One is that you might have to wait up to two years to use NomCom to not re-appoint.

The other is that the feedback to NomCom is very different in focus and examination from that in a recall. That is, a recall makes a specific claim and provides evidence that is either enough to warrant a recall committee making a decision one way or the other. While one could provide supporting evidence to NomCom and even get a set of signatories to agree, I don't think a NomCom would see it the same way as a recall committee.

But, I confess, I read Ekr's comment as though he was saying that the existence of a recall process was pointless because NomCom exists. That is certainly a question that could be discussed, but not the one (I think) that SM raised in his draft.

SM's question was that, given that a recall process exists, should remote attendees be barred from participating in a request for a recall committee to be formed?

Best,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Eligibility-discuss <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
Sent: 18 September 2019 21:29
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

On 9/18/19 12:11 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> The Nomcom process and the Recall process are independent of each other.

I'm not EKR but I believe that the argument is that one obviates
the other - that bad actors can simply not be reappointed.  That
may be true, modulo schedules and whatnot (the risk of leaving
someone who's performing badly in place for longer than would be
the case if they'd been recalled).

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[e-mail]

Software longa, hardware brevis