[bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

[William Drake]

Hi Jeremy

On Nov 20, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> (Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we omit any mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our candidates to those who will fill slots that will be open anyway.

The process being followed was agreed off list?  Confused responses are then to be expected, no? 

> If we clarify that we support the continuation of the candidates who are eligible for continuing, and drop the specific candidates mentioned, this may help?

If indeed you support the continuation of the candidates who are eligible for continuing, yes that would be important to say.  I wouldn’t leave it to the Secretariat and DESA to draw inferences.

But my questions remain.   Since others knew to respond I assume a CFP with this info was issued, but I missed it and can’t find it in the BB archives (apologies if it turns out this is simply because I’m in a crowded noisy hallway and can’t focus).   So again, could you tell when was the call for nominations, what was the deadline for submission, and what is the process from here?

Looking through other messages from today, I agree with Mawaki that when BB (and IGC, and anyone else) sends the secretariat nominations, this should be accompanied by a clear explanation of who’s making the nominations on what basis and the nomination procedure that’s been followed so they have context for what they’re looking at. 

I also agree with Anriette:

On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> As you can see, they joined in May 2012 or later, with one exception. This does not mean we don't need rotation. There are some people that have not worked hard enough for reasons of being too busy, unableI to come to meetings (funding is not always available), or just lacking confidence. MAG work is not easy. In my view that means they should not remain. But there are some people on this list who have worked very hard, and who have managed to push through some difficult and challenging debates and I do think that it is important to keep them.



The problem is that the only people who can readily identify those have not contributed much are their colleagues, and this would be rather awkward, to put it mildly.  Unless they choose on their own accord to stand up and say they’re too busy etc. to continue, I have no idea how to approach this problem, whether on BB or elsewhere.  It is however consequential—heavy loads require all available hands or the few end up struggling.

Best,

Bill






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/2a6bb4c3/attachment.htm>