Given that we are talking about dynamics of people, controlling the
outcome of the nomcom process with 6 folks, even if those 6 folks were
actually to cooperate, is very dependent upon who they are, who the
other 4 are, who the liaisons and chair are, etc.
Rumor claims that on occaison two people who did not even have a vote
had more influence than any sitting members. I believe practice has
changed to reduce that particular problem.
I do grant that consistent excessive representation from large
corporations could be a problem. If we want to re-open 3777 for
substantive change, I can live with a change to 1 person per
corporation. I think that the potential benefits from such would
probably out-weight the drawbacks.
However, it is not at all clear to me that the benefits of reopening
3777 for substantive change outweigh the VERY large costs of such an
activity.
As an example of the complications, we would presumably have to discuss
your alternative selection process proposal. Which would involve
looking at the perverse incentives on the corporations to control their
participation in the pool, and to self-select who they want to see
standing. Ouch.
And from experiences we all have been through, I would stronglye xpect
even more complex and difficult discussions if we open the document up
to substantive changes.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/16/14, 1:52 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
Actually, it's worse than that. The number is 3 companies to get 6 slots. At
that point, those three companies control the outcome of the Nomcom. Of
course, being too obvious will result in interesting backlash.