Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 11 February 2015 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7951A1A93 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:56:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6xJXz0nhwpHl for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ECDE1A0383 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378EE203B0; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:04:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 58F1363A21; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:56:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F155637F4; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:56:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Mary Barnes <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:56:54 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:56:59 -0000

Mary Barnes <> 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.