Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:34:01 -0500

(sorry, hit "send" too soon)

--On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 09:35 -0500 Ted Lemon
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The operation of each nomcom are pretty opaque to those who
> are not on it.   For those who have interacted with a nomcom
> as candidates, such an impression might exist.   It's possible
> that nomcom liaisons or chairs could speak to this.   However,
> since nomcom proceedings are supposed to be confidential, I
> don't know how much they could really say.   Because these
> properties of the nomcom are intentional and useful, it does
> make sense to be particularly careful about how nomcom
> eligibility is determined and not just trust to peoples' good
> natures.

+1

There are other categories - while Ted's example is of someone
who disappears from f2f meetings for a year or so but stays
involved, I'm equally concerned about people like myself who,
for a variety of reasons, have dropped down to one or two F2F
meetings a year but are still active and involved by any
plausible measure other than physical meeting attendance --
probably more so that a significant fraction of those who are
attending more often.

And, again, unless we start changing other things, we really
aren't just talking about the Nomcom.  We use Nomcom eligibility
for some other things where "disenfranchised" is more direct
than being ineligible to volunteer for a pool from which Nomcom
members are selected at random.

    john