Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility - Recalls

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 22:07 -0400 Joel
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> As a minor point, I would probably be significantly more
> supportive of a step that relaxed the rules for recall
> signers.  Being involved is much more important than knowing
> the culte for the question of judging whether someone has done
> something they shouldn't ave.

For whatever it is worth, I agree.

At the same time, I think that, if we want broader and more
diverse participation, including active participation from those
who don't regularly attend meetings it would be highly desirable
for Nomcoms to consider sensitivity to those issues as one of
many factors in selecting members of leadership groups,
especially the IESG and IAOC.  As has been regularly pointed out
in "diversity" discussions, having someone who is not a member
of a particular group speak for and represent that group is
rarely optimal.

Since I've encouraged others to think creatively, let me mention
a quick thought:   If we conclude that effective Nomcom
membership requires physical attendance at a majority of recent
meetings and physical attendance at all meetings during that
Nomcom's term (I'm not convinced, but that is another matter),
would the effectiveness of the Nomcom be improved by adding a
special member who was selected using the usual mechanism but
drawn from a pool consisting of volunteers from the portion of
the community who had made multiple observable contributions but
who didn't meet the meeting attendance criteria?  Those special
members might not be allowed to vote (consistent with "effective
Nomcom membership") but, unlike liaisons, would be able to
participate in all discussions and evaluations of possible
candidates.

Just a thought.

> PS: Addressing the efficacy of remote participation is a fine
> thing.  It is not something I have a clue how to do, and not a
> topic for the nomcom list.

Perhaps someone needs to decide to move all or part of this
discussion to the IETF list.  Until and unless that is done, I
don't think this list can dodge the apparent inconsistency I
mentioned in my note of a few minutes ago.

best,
   john