[arin-ppml] Nomcom rejection explanatory letter

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 4, 2021, at 12:38 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Perhaps we should consider whether we still want nomcom, it might be hard to find volunteers now that public flaying is a real possibility.
> 
> The alternative I can think of being self nomination with threshold of supporting members.

This would considerably narrow the pool of available candidates since only a general member may nominate (both current and proposed rules). I, for example, would not be able to nominate myself. Some may disagree, but I believe I provided almost 14 years of solid service and good contributions to the AC, so I think it would be hard to argue that I was not a good candidate.

> Perhaps the nomcom job should be mostly ensuring objective checkbox suitability/eligibiity of resulting candidates, or in the event of a dearth of candidates beat the bushes for volunteers to run.

Personally, I think that the nominating committee should have the following responsibilities:

	1.	Recruite candidates
	2.	Remove clearly unqualified candidates — This shouldn’t be a judgment call,
			if in doubt, let the voters sort it out.
	3.	Provide a detailed explanation to each rejected candidate. (privately)
	4.	Winnow the slate(s) to not more than 3xN where N is the number of open
		positions to be elected.

> Where dearth might have a threshold of minimum 2 candidates per position.

Currently the minimum is N+1 where N is the number of open slots, so for example, a vote for 2 race for board (normal annual board) would yield a minimum of 3 whereas a normal AC election (without resignations) would require 6 (5 slots to fill each year).

I’m not opposed to N*2, but I’m also mostly OK with the N+1 minimum currently present.

Owen