NANOG-futures

[Steve Feldman]

On Sep 23, 2006, at 2:11 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> From the latest SC Minutes:
>
> "PC Replacement Appointment
>
> There were three volunteers. The PC recommended Nick Feamster. The
> SC discussed the candidates, and followed the recommendation of the
> PC. Nick Feamster was appointed to the PC."
>
> Why did the SC feel it needed act on this now
> instead of waiting until there was going to be a call for
> nominations by Steve Feldman in a few weeks?
I felt that, since the opening was in an area in which the PC had
no remaining members with expertise, it would be best to have a
replacement on board as soon as possible.

> Who were the other two volunteers that weren't selected
> and considering that community input was tendered during
> the first round of appointments to the PC, what was the
> rationale for "replacement appointment" vs. the nominations
> route? It's literally only a few weeks away.
The charter doesn't require community input for PC membership
appointments.  In theory, the SC could use any method it chooses.

Since we had a rather compressed time frame, and it was for a
single replacement appointment, I chose not to put the list out
for public comment this time.  I fully intend to do so for the
general call for PC nominations next month, however.

Since we didn't explicitly tell the nominees that their names
would be made public, I would rather not do so now.  I will
state that the two not chosen were both also well qualified,
and I will encourage both to submit their names for the
October PC selection process.

By the way, there is a proposed charter amendment to clarify
the PC selection process: http://www.nanog.org/charter/
These are not yet final; the SC plans to vote on the final
wording to put on the ballot on Oct. 5.  Until then, discussion
on this list is still welcomed.
	Steve