[governance] NomCom process: Charter clarification? (was: NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update)

[Norbert Bollow]

Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm reluctant to propose Charter amendments but this issue needs
> clarification in the Charter.

I agree that it would be good to clarify this. The current language is
too open to conflicting interpretations.

There are several ways in which this could potentially be clarified,
including:

(a) The non-voting chair is always chosen from outside the group of
randomly selected NomCom members.

(b) The non-voting chair is always chosen from within the group of
randomly selected NomCom members. Even if none of them have ever served
on a NomCom before, the coordinators are not allowed to appoint a
non-voting chair from outside the group of random selected NomCom
members.

(c) The non-voting chair should normally be chosen from outside the
group of randomly selected NomCom members, but in an exceptional
situation the coordinators may appoint one of the randomly selected
NomCom members as non-voting chair, provided that this person agrees
to thereby forsake their voting rights.

> I believe - open to correction - that the last time a NomCom was used
> the Chair was in fact one of the random selectees?

What happened was that there was a chair who was not one of the random
selectees and who found it necessary to resign in the middle of the
NomCom's work due to a conflict of interest which emerged at that time.

After that resignation, one of the randomly selected NomCom members
agreed to take over the role of non-voting chair. I did not participate
in the process that led to that decision (because I also had a conflict
of interests) but I agree that formalities aside, that was a better way
forward than bringing in a new non-voting chair from the outside.

In view of this experience, I think that rule 'c' is better than 'a'.
Rule 'b' is not a good choice at all IMO, since it is entirely possible
for a random selection to yield five persons without any previous NomCom
experience, and/or without the necessary leadership skills for chairing
a NomCom.

> The pointing to the Charter of a different group feels uncomfortable
> to me; it would seem preferable to refer to the obvious logic of
> having an uneven number of members to avoid a split vote, and
> including someone with no responsibility to vote who can facilitate
> the process itself.

Yes, I absolutely agree... I only went digging in the RFCs after it was
challenged whether my understanding of this part of the IGC Charter is
in fact correct.

Greetings,
Norbert

-- 
Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t