BWG-NomCom Comment

[Satish Babu <sb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My comments below are based on my (limited) experience with the NomCom, and
is a slightly-modified version my posting in At-Large discussions.
Apologies for some overlap with the earlier comments.

1. At the outset, the intentions behind the re-engineering proposal, that
of better alignment with regional and structural realities, are certainly
laudable. The conversion of non-Voting members to Voting Members, and the
two-year staggered terms are also welcome steps.

2. However, when examining the proposal from the internal perspective of
the NomCom, several difficulties are apparent:

a. Need to preserve NomCom Dynamics
Although the NomCom is mostly viewed in terms of its outputs/outcomes, its
most important aspect is the dynamics of its internal process, which could
be somewhat fragile and sensitive. One gets the feeling that the NomCom in
the new proposal has been reduced to a mechanical grouping of Delegations.
If one forces a mechanical approach to the NomCom, it may result in some of
the members feeling alienated and dissatisfied with the outcome. This would
be in contrast with the present system where each member gets a fair
opportunity to express herself and the processes are transparent, and
consequently members feel a sense of accomplishment, satisfaction and
ownership in the outcome.

b. Logistical Challenges
The fear of a mechanical process arises from the size of the proposed
NomCom and consequently the possible inability to provide equal
opportunities to all members on account of the time required for
deliberations of a large NomCom. For instance, it would be challenging to
manage a group of 25 people, even in a long (120 minutes) telephone call,
particularly when the call spans numerous time zones. Face to face meetings
also may become unreasonably long unless a new approach is evolved.,

c. Delegation voting
The introduction of Delegation-based voting introduces yet another
constraint to a fully free and transparent NomCom process. While the
proposal looks fine in principle, it may leave individual members
disempowered if they cannot agree on how to deploy their Delegation vote.
More important, since the discussions are mostly held within the
Delegation, the rest of the NomCom members see delegations only as black
boxes.

d. Chair-elect
By far the most crucial issue in the new proposal is the removal of the
Chair-Elect. The Chair-Elect serves two roles: the first as an understudy
to the Chair who is learning the processes for possible appointment in the
following year; and the second as a member of the Leadership Team assisting
the Chair in managing the processes of the NomCom and providing general
oversight. The authors of the proposal seem to have ignored the second
role. It is indeed ironic that while on the one hand the NomCom size is to
be increased by 50%, the leadership team is to be downsized. This would
have serious workload implications. I strongly feel that the Chair-elect
role should be retained.

Further, the existing system of a one-year term for the Chair, leading to a
maximum of 3 years in the NLT (1 year as Chair-elect + 1 year as Chair + 1
year  as Associate Chair) appears to have worked well, and I personally do
not see sufficiently strong reasons to change this (unless there is a real
shortage of people who can fill these roles--something that is visible to
the Board but not to the rest of us). The current system also provides for
leadership training as well as continuity in a smooth manner. To me, this
system appears more natural and logical.

The proposed formulation results in a Chair who runs the NomCom for a
two-year period, at the same time, retaining the possibility of continuing
in the NLT another two years. I would consider 4 years too long for a
person to be in the NLT. Further, if an outsider is brought in as Associate
Chair, then the Chair becomes solely responsible to decide the form of
leadership of NLT (in the current system, the presence of a Board-elected
Chair-elect in the NLT would be a deterrent). Therefore, my personal
preference would be to continue the present formula, assuming we have good
candidates for the Chair's position.

Finally, I also have some reservation about interim appointments in the NLT
(if they arise) being made from one of the Delegations from the NomCom. NLT
members are expected to be neutral and the selection as well as grooming
processes reinforce this aspect. Elevating Delegation members to NLT may
erode this neutrality. By retaining the existing 3-member NLT, the NomCom
may be able to continue without inducting new members even if one member
drops out by any chance.

---