I have the exact same question and concern with regards to being overly prescriptive. Was this proposal intended to solve a problem experienced by a past Nomcom?
Regards,
Mary.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was a bit confused by this discussion. By 3777, the chair establishes the voting procedure. By assumption, he establishes it before it is needed.
A sensible chair will establish procedures that the committee is comfortable with. Since it is the chair who will administer whatever proecedures are used, it eh committee does not trust the chair to establsih them, why would the committee trust the chair to adminsiter them?
I would hate to have an overly strict rule on voting procedures, and a couple of nomcom members get into a typical IETF dispute about the best answer, and thereby hang the work of the nomcom.
Why is this being made more complex, with strict priority, strict rules on adoption, etc?
Yours,
Joel
On 8/28/15 5:51 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
On 8/28/2015 4:13 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Once established, this procedure
cannot be altered until the current nominating committee is
dissolved.
A) It turns out that voting mechanisms are *tricky* beasts. The idea
that a nomcom will make them 100% right on the first try is a Bad Idea.
That assertion would seem to run contrary to the process rigidity you
are proposing above.
Indeed.
One would hope that a NomCom that discovers it is really unhappy with its voting mechanism can use exactly that voting mechanism to agree to make changes.
Adrian