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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

At 19:07 26-06-2013, Joel wrote:
>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.

Spencer mentioned the following last month:

   "participants have to learn how to collaborate with folks"

   "it's still not easy for me to have conversations with total strangers.
    That's not a cultural challenge, and it's not a language challenge,
    but it is a challenge"

I don't have the clue to make remote participation better.  If "we" 
collaborate we might be able to find solutions.

At 01:00 27-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
>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.

One of the problems with "diversity" discussions is that we get into 
representativity.  The question came up in one of my non-IETF 
roles.  My stance was that I do not represent a group or claim to 
speak on their behalf; I am accountable to them and everybody else.

>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.

My concern is that once we have a different pool or treat different 
parts of the community differently it can be argued that there should 
be more pools.  Groups that feel slighted will ask for special members.

>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.

I'll start a thread on that list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy