Re: Updating BCP 10 -- some minor bits

[Allison Mankin <[e-mail]>]

Mike,

I don't agree with constraining Chairs to past Nomcom voting members.  I
think that our voting members have great abilities and insights, but I'd
like for the ISOC CEO to have a bigger pool of possible choices, because
organizing and executing all the steps of the Nomcom process is extremely
demanding and many people either don't feel they could do it, or can't get
management support for giving so much time and effort.

A future chair can make up the numbers as an observer in interviews.  I'm
sure the past chair sometimes feels a bit disengaged too, after having had
so much work to do, but this isn't a show-stopper.

Allison



On 9 January 2015 at 13:49, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:

> At 01:34 PM 1/9/2015, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >2) several of us suggest that the Chair for year X, be appointed prior to
> the
> >   the beginning of the Third IETF of year X-1.  This permits the
> >   chair-elect/future-chair, to participate and learn about the process
> prior
> >   to starting.  While this adds about 4 months to the duration of the
> chair
> >   duties, it probably reduces their stress sufficiently that they will
> live
> >   an extra year longer.
>
> It used to be usual that  the Chair for year X was a member of Nomcom
> X-1.  Doing a quick review I see that there are a number of recent (last 10
> or so) years where that isn't the case.
>
> It may be time to try and add that back into the chair selection criteria
> with increased emphasis.
>
> It may also be time to add "MUST have been a nomcom member in the last 4
> years" to that selection criteria.
>
> I wouldn't do the overlap - the role of the "future chair" would need to
> be that of a mute fly on the wall to keep from perturbing the process.
> Kind of boring IMHO.
>
> Mike
>
>
>