Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Mary Barnes <[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.