Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> 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.