On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>
wrote:
Ted Lemon <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
> The operation of each nomcom are pretty opaque to those who are not
on
> it. For those who have interacted with a nomcom as candidates, such
> an impression might exist. It's possible that nomcom liaisons or
> chairs could speak to this. However, since nomcom proceedings are
> supposed to be confidential, I don't know how much they could really
> say. Because these properties of the nomcom are intentional and
> useful, it does make sense to be particularly careful about how
nomcom
> eligibility is determined and not just trust to peoples' good
natures.
The 2013/2014 had someone who had to be removed because they could not
attend
any meetings, and were never able to organize themselves to attend calls.
I think that they weren't Elmer; my poor recollection is that a family
member
got ill, and they simply couldn't do much other than their 9-5. I never
met
this person, didn't know who they were.
The take home if that if one does select Elmer, and s/he sits on the beach
rather than coming to the nomcom meetings, the nomcom can boot them out. If
it happens early enough, the nomcom chair can replace them, or the nomcom
can
operate with 9 rather than 10.
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]
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software
Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-