Re: NomCom procedures revision

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

I have the exact same question and concern with regards to being overly
prescriptive.    Was this proposal intended to solve a problem experienced
by a past Nomcom?

Regards,
Mary.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I was a bit confused by this discussion.  By 3777, the chair establishes
> the voting procedure.  By assumption, he establishes it before it is needed.
>
> A sensible chair will establish procedures that the committee is
> comfortable with.  Since it is the chair who will administer whatever
> proecedures are used, it eh committee does not trust the chair to establsih
> them, why would the committee trust the chair to adminsiter them?
>
> I would hate to have an overly strict rule on voting procedures, and a
> couple of nomcom members get into a typical IETF dispute about the best
> answer, and thereby hang the work of the nomcom.
>
> Why is this being made more complex, with strict priority, strict rules on
> adoption, etc?
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>
> On 8/28/15 5:51 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/2015 4:13 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>>
>>>> Once established, this procedure
>>>>     cannot be altered until the current nominating committee is
>>>>     dissolved.
>>>>
>>>> A) It turns out that voting mechanisms are *tricky* beasts. The idea
>>>> that a nomcom will make them 100% right on the first try is a Bad Idea.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That assertion would seem to run contrary to the process rigidity you
>>> are proposing above.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>> One would hope that a NomCom that discovers it is really unhappy with its
>> voting mechanism can use exactly that voting mechanism to agree to make
>> changes.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>