Re: [Eligibility-discuss] on re-using nomcom chairs (was Re: Draft meeting minutes)

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew - comments below.

On 10/30/2019 7:44 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Speaking with my ISOC President hat on:
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 04:16:29PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
>   
>> How about the last three Nomcom chairs that didn't serve on a Nomcom
>> committee or with the petition target on one of the I* bodies or as a
>> co-worker?   2/3 vote to void the petition?
> I would like to remind people that I already have quite a difficult
> job finding a well-qualified, non-disqualified, willing and able
> nomcom chair.  And I start with the advantage of knowing some part of
> the community (knowledge that inevitably will grow stale over time, of
> course); not everyone who will ever be appointed to my job will start
> with such an advantage.  If people take a decision that starts to add
> more possible time commitments to nomcom chairs, finding good chairs
> will get harder.  If serving as nomcom chair signs you up to a
> possible responsibility for an undefined number of years (as the above
> formula would, because of the interactions with who you didn't appoint
> and work with and and so on), you might be reluctant to take on such a
> job.  It's already a two year commitment.

All good points, but missing a few others:

1) The workload for a recall committee is ... maybe one week.

2) The chance of a former chair being called back is ... minimal.  If 
it's not minimal, the Nomcom process is sorely broken.

3) Any given chair can refuse the call when it comes.

4) Unlike the selection of the Nomcom chair, the selection of the recall 
chair, in the worst circumstances, could be perceived as being selected 
to achieve a specific result in the recall. Avoiding that perception by 
making the selection of the recall chair in a manner (e.g. mechanically, 
through a previously agreed approach) that eliminates that possibility 
seems to me to be a good result.

5) And as you noted in a previous message, it's a pain and 
time-consuming to find and recruit the right person.  It also puts the 
ISOC President squarely in the critical path of the current recall 
process.  ISTM that eliminating the time (clock time which causes a 
delay in resolution and the ISOC President's time which impacts their 
other duties) to run that process is a *good thing* (TM).

6) TANSTAAFL - we're either going to pay a little over time (by keeping 
the Nomcom chair's in pocket for a possible recall) or pay a lot all at 
once, perhaps when we can least afford the time or effort.  Personally, 
I'd really do the former.

7) At least a few times over the past 10-15 years  various groups of 
past chairs have gotten together to discuss the Nomcom process.  I 
remain invested in it even after 20 years or so.  If you reach out to 
the group and find more than a few who said "no way in hell" I'd be 
surprised.

Mike


ps -

As you note, the ISOC president isn't guaranteed to have your level of 
knowledge.  Perhaps it's time for the IETF to reconsider who selects the 
Nomcom chair (and how that process might work if it's not the ISOC 
president).  The current scheme has been in place for quite a long while 
- it's probably worth a look.   I mention this as an aside to this 
thread mainly because of your comments above, rather than something to 
add to the current discussion.   Poised/poisson topic I think if we head 
that way. /msj/


>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>