Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A701A1BCC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:24:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KXjHpFKjH2hh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:24:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 448651A0250 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:24:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2511C1BC2136; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:24:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-134-12.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.134.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10BA01BC2510; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:24:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DBBA7F.3010201@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:24:31 -0500
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <04AED0595DF62A6F1013479D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54DB5CBE.3070502@dcrocker.net> <54DB66A0.1050006@pi.nu> <BE226640-1857-4232-9D4F-78445D82776A@nominum.com> <13061.1423674140@sandelman.ca> <CABmDk8mMPa4RVfiJa8BrY5A0_F+oWXgetMp_Rq9qS-K=2Y8Xow@mail.gmail.com> <5135.1423681014@sandelman.ca> <CABmDk8na6rvOkSUHX+q3zs5cUVsvL6R7DkK-cs7rNhB6WeaS-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABmDk8na6rvOkSUHX+q3zs5cUVsvL6R7DkK-cs7rNhB6WeaS-A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8jVb2hdtR5XZWrrn7CgamjztFqE>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:24:42 -0000

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 <mcr@sandelman.ca
> <mailto:mcr@sandelman.ca>> wrote:
>
>
>     Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com
>     <mailto:mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>> 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]
>