On 11/02/2015 18:56, Michael Richardson wrote:
Mary Barnes <mary(_dot_)h(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)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.
Michael
Unless they are required to be silent unless spoken to, the spare member
will
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
vote,
and some back tracking of the process will be required.
Stewart