Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

Given that such an extra person will be inherently included in the 
conversations, I believe that this change is better described as:

Increase the size of the nomcom to 11 volunteers, but keep the minimum 
size and Quorum as they are today.

Now, that may be a good idea.  But we should not pretend it is really 
just a hot standby.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/11/15 2:31 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     Mary Barnes <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>          >> Allison has suggesting selecting 11 people, with the 11th
>     being a
>          >> participating, but non-voting spare.  I'm undecided if this
>     would be a good
>          >> thing.  In 2014/2015 I did select an 11th from the pool, and
>     confirmed that
>          >> selection with others in case we needed someone else.
>
>          > [MB] I actually really like this idea as it seems to be more
>     the rule than
>          > the exception that one person has to leave the nomcom or just
>     isn't engaged
>          > (I had the latter on the Nomcom I chaired and the former on
>     the one for
>          > which I was past-chair advisor).  So, I think having a backup
>     is a really
>          > good idea.  I would suggest if that happens that each Nomcom
>     should agree
>          > at the start the criteria under which they would add the 11th
>     as a 10th
>          > voting member.   I had a voting member that just wasn't
>     participating at
>          > all for an extended period of time.  I was almost at the
>     point of going
>          > through the process of having them removed as a voting
>     member, but finally
>          > I was able to get some response. But, this situation wasted a
>     lot of time
>          > and does a disservice to the process.
>          > [/MB]
>
>     The issue is whether the 11th member (the spare), sits through the
>     proceedings, goes to the interviews, etc.  If they don't, then they
>     aren't of
>     much use.... If they *do* it seems like a large burden to do that,
>     and then
>     not get to vote unless someone gets hit by a bus.
>
> [MB] It wouldn't be particularly useful if the 11th wasn't involved in
> the process as a voting
> member would be.  The process has a number of people that invest a lot
> of time and effort
> that don't get to vote.   Also, as we've seen it's not just getting hit
> by the bus - from what I've
> seen it is more the rule than the exception that at least one voting
> member finds they can no longer serve or
> they just aren't investing the time.  I think it would also be possible
> for the 11th to participate
> in discussions, provide input, etc. and just not vote.  Although, I
> think that would be up to the
> particular nomcom, as is a number of other decisions in terms of how
> engaged anyone that isn't a
> voting member is in the process - e.g., some nomcoms actually have the
> past chair in interviews.
> As chair, I didn't even feel it was a necessity for me to be involved in
> all interviews.  I did sit
> in on some where we did not have sufficient voting members available.
> [/MB]
>