Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Stewart Bryant <> Fri, 13 February 2015 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1921A8742 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:11:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M6oygK0x1abr for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D49471A8741 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:11:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2136; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1423843879; x=1425053479; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bqa98oZBmJ8FbGeUhv6lACS6FqXzrIMSv37cmv1CIaE=; b=F70HP65ywhk1UNxI+ahwVXrX54dEiZfCLPnDHYf1dHApWXYbjeY55JMy sBt1aaludsvZbi7NxhqaeUWLtYVqeu/hAJAc6XX0kVJEcmi72anlxz1DT vfJmpNXzEjdhNUeI8i9QLL9QeduKNsBgvUNHAqNziUCA41/nALEBCfR4s s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,571,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="344368958"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2015 16:11:16 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1DGBFIt028120; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:11:15 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:11:19 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Richardson <>, Mary Barnes <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:11:21 -0000

On 11/02/2015 18:56, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 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.

Unless they are required to be silent unless spoken to, the spare member 
have some influence in the outcome, through the debate that takes place.
They may not have as much influence as someone with a vote but they
have significantly more influence than anyone outside the Nomcom.

If you take the contra view that they should not speak, there is a danger
that they will not support the work so far, if and when they do get the 
and some back tracking of the process will be required.