Given that such an extra person will be inherently included in the
conversations, I believe that this change is better described as:
Increase the size of the nomcom to 11 volunteers, but keep the minimum
size and Quorum as they are today.
Now, that may be a good idea. But we should not pretend it is really
just a hot standby.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/11/15 2:31 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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.
[MB] It wouldn't be particularly useful if the 11th wasn't involved in
the process as a voting
member would be. The process has a number of people that invest a lot
of time and effort
that don't get to vote. Also, as we've seen it's not just getting hit
by the bus - from what I've
seen it is more the rule than the exception that at least one voting
member finds they can no longer serve or
they just aren't investing the time. I think it would also be possible
for the 11th to participate
in discussions, provide input, etc. and just not vote. Although, I
think that would be up to the
particular nomcom, as is a number of other decisions in terms of how
engaged anyone that isn't a
voting member is in the process - e.g., some nomcoms actually have the
past chair in interviews.
As chair, I didn't even feel it was a necessity for me to be involved in
all interviews. I did sit
in on some where we did not have sufficient voting members available.
[/MB]