Re: [ietf-nomcom] While I have you all here - size of the Nomcom voting members?

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 10:31 PM Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi -
>
> One of the side discussions I had with a few people was related to the
> expanding number of positions the nomcom has to fill, the expanding
> number of liaisons (who get to vote on everything but candidate, and
> participate on everything and who in quantity are approaching the number
> of voting members), and the static number of nomcom voting members (same
> since nomcom #1).
>
> I'm wondering if increasing next year's nomcom to by some amount (to 15,
> 16 and 20 were numbers discussed) might help ease the burden, and give a
> few more people opportunities to participate in selecting the future
> leadership, and deal with the occasional problems of missing in action
> voting members?  15 because it sort of matches the scaling of positions
> somewhat, 16 because its the next even number, and 20 as sort of the
> maximum I think could be easily absorbed.
>

IMHO, the voting_size we have now is enough for best decision results,
however, we may have reserved members that can be replacing voting_member
if there is a need for while maintaining voting size.


> That might give the chair some opportunities to delegate some of the
> tedium of getting interviews done and arms to be twisted.
>

having reserved members can solve that also,


>
> This would require community consensus, but the update document would
> simply change that number and nothing else.
>

For nomcom, there is the voting size and the member_duties size, if the
duties are increased he/she can delegate such work among number of reserved
members while maintaining the voting size of nomcom.

>
> Thoughts?  Mike
>

I disagree with proposal of increase voting size, I think the best
voting_size per org_meeting cannot be more than 10.

Regards,
AB