Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

With regard to the proposal, the original proposal was sufficiently far 
back in the thread, and there ere enough ideas about modifying it, that 
I am not sure I can construct exactly what you intended.  Your recent 
message in this regard in which you restated the general shape helped. 
I have seen some of the ideas for "contribution" and some discussion of 
same, but ...

being able to look at real data would definitely help.  I understand 
that the lack is not your doing.  And the secretariat and tools team 
folks have other things on their plate.  Just hard to judge.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/12/15 4:15 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > I really don't think that relaxing nomcom membership rules is an
>      > effective way to address our (very real) leadership diversity
>      > issue. That being said diversity is clearly of value for the nomcom
>      > itself, in addition to the value for our leadership bodies.  I have no
>      > idea whether the proposed rules would actually qualify a more diverse
>      > set of people. Larger, yes.  More diverse?  Maybe.  But given that all
>      > of these rules are very rough approximations for what we need, I am
>      > concerned that relaxing them without sufficient relationship to our
>      > needs has a too high a probability of making things worse in important
>      > ways.
>
> If we can find a way to get the registration database imported into the
> datatracker, that would permit one to run some experiments.  We need that
> data, because we need to know if someone is 3/5 qualified already.
>
>      > All of which is why I want to see a specific proposal.  And why I have
>      > said that in the abstract I would like to see improvement.
>
> I have written some specific ideas (close to, but not specific wording for
> BCP10) on this thread.  If that was insufficient for you to evaluate
> conceptually (parameters can be tweaked); can you tell me in what form you
> think it needs to be presented?
>
> Or is this really a continuation of the above paragraph; and really you are
> saying you'd like to be able apply the process against real data, and observe
> the results?  (running code)
>