Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9A11A1B37 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:31:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8aZNKJlRIKl7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C94AE1A8AAC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id p9so5276712lbv.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:31:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2ghFbZ+p94MRkYTTjiGQgFwwjKvjXQCiFR5+vTJWA0g=; b=ljw7pmmFUzcedCFQ4snajK3A5OUZeSngkVgAhUSs5H+R+SWQA7Ftc8uOuDsnqmqIVu mGris6D/WAEMn8mOb0yPbmtx0J6JnXb+kAZbbC700wh1n2e0Rv75O9ma7uEufOER2Rd4 Ss4s8GGiNEYJ+43F5Zu+hvMhfQ/dxD1Xd0G447IgINkAvJKrUTuGJ3I0lRiOst2bhT7x BspMWWLGItRkPDSWHh1flL6uHOimQ4/lktuHkIP7KhrltfMyqwD09aFVCeugFqm9gMy6 o7WAM0orFEuqPE2q7WkKhoetT8oZsB7vkNq8tQ1Y6OCeJZ7RjbiHDghBlplz02nFMAGn BBtg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.45.37 with SMTP id j5mr149316lam.110.1423683062072; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:31:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.40.133 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:31:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5135.1423681014@sandelman.ca>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <04AED0595DF62A6F1013479D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54DB5CBE.3070502@dcrocker.net> <54DB66A0.1050006@pi.nu> <BE226640-1857-4232-9D4F-78445D82776A@nominum.com> <13061.1423674140@sandelman.ca> <CABmDk8mMPa4RVfiJa8BrY5A0_F+oWXgetMp_Rq9qS-K=2Y8Xow@mail.gmail.com> <5135.1423681014@sandelman.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:31:01 -0600
Message-ID: <CABmDk8na6rvOkSUHX+q3zs5cUVsvL6R7DkK-cs7rNhB6WeaS-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c28c10300a33050ed50b48
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/V2bcKqVvq322KBHcgPyrwoSWtNM>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:31:08 -0000

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> 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.
>
[MB] It wouldn't be particularly useful if the 11th wasn't involved in the
process as a voting
member would be.  The process has a number of people that invest a lot of
time and effort
that don't get to vote.   Also, as we've seen it's not just getting hit by
the bus - from what I've
seen it is more the rule than the exception that at least one voting member
finds they can no longer serve or
they just aren't investing the time.  I think it would also be possible for
the 11th to participate
in discussions, provide input, etc. and just not vote.  Although, I think
that would be up to the
particular nomcom, as is a number of other decisions in terms of how
engaged anyone that isn't a
voting member is in the process - e.g., some nomcoms actually have the past
chair in interviews.
As chair, I didn't even feel it was a necessity for me to be involved in
all interviews.  I did sit
in on some where we did not have sufficient voting members available.
[/MB]