Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
I agree.
The other liasons to the process are doing this at the request of their
respective organizations...
> 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.
I made use of all of the liasons and past-chair as observers.
> 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.
The same for me; I tried to sit through at least the first interview for each
time I had a "green" lead person... but I certainly didn't feel I had to be
there the whole time. In fact, I got rather giddy with (parental?)
satisfaction as I found that the nomcom members were completely exceeding my
expectations in the way they were conducting the interviews.
So, the question is: should the selection of a spare, and the process (that
they be treated as a non-selection-voting observer) be written into BCP10?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature