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

[Deirdre Williams]

Sorry for the delay in responding.
I agree with the proposed option c
I also feel that it would help to resolve the issue amicably if another
label could be chosen for the non-voting person - perhaps moderator or
facilitator?
Deirdre


On 23 May 2013 11:41, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130524/28d70a7c/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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