[governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates

[Parminder]

Bill, Meryem and Adam

Thanks for your engagement with the nomcom process. It is good to have these
open discussions. 

A couple of clarifications, as per what I know. 

First is the issue of developing criteria for nomination. I gave repeated
calls, even set aside days, for the caucus to discuss these criteria, and
requested the nomcom both to listen to the conversation and pick up the
sense of the caucus, and ask specific questions if found necessary. Though
such a discussion regarding a few issues did take place a little earlier on
the list, in this period no one came back to mention or reiterate her/his
views on criteria for selection. 

So I really do not know what you mean Adam when you say

>We didn't even have chance to discuss the kind of qualities we thought the
>nomcom should look for. 

However still the nomcom was specifically requested to pick the sense of the
caucus on this issue, and wherever information/ clarification was sought
from co-coordinators they let their view of the discussions on the list
known.  

We expect a detailed report from the nomcom which will address all issues
raised here. 

> The process that was announced called for people to send nominations
> directly to the chair rather than to the list, so that's what people doing
> the nominating did.  I don't think it's surprising that the other 30
> nominees all thought, well, whatever, that's the process this time, and
> nobody else is saying anything...

As far as I know, last time around too the nominations were requested to be
sent to a specific id IGC-nomcom at wsis-cs.org and not to the list. Sending it
to the list is something optional left to the nominating person. When you
say 'nobody else is saying anything', that includes you. When I said 30 plus
nominations have been received in response to your posting that only one or
so is received, you should have mentioned that you think it to be a very non
transparent process, since I see you have particular strong position on
this. It is our collective responsibility to contribute to the process when
we see something can be changed/ improved.


As about other things, as also these above ones I commented on, I am sure
nomcom may have more to say on this issue.  

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:16 PM
> To: Peake, Adam; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
> 
> Hi Adam,
> 
> On 4/23/08 12:29 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> >> Hi Meryem,
> >>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> we didn't seem to have many
> >> candidates since only a few incumbents--Adam, Jeanette, Qusai I
> >> believe----had said on the list they wanted to be considered.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nothing prevented you or anyone else from saying you intended to be a
> > candidate.
> 
> The process that was announced called for people to send nominations
> directly to the chair rather than to the list, so that's what people doing
> the nominating did.  I don't think it's surprising that the other 30
> nominees all thought, well, whatever, that's the process this time, and
> nobody else is saying anything...
> 
> > Because people (other than most of the incumbent MAG members) didn't
> > announce their candidacy there wasn't an opportunity for support and
> > endorsements.  We didn't even have chance to discuss the kind of
> > qualities we thought the nomcom should look for. Other than the MAG
> 
> Actually we discussed that at some length prior to the constitution of the
> nomcom.  You were part of the discussion, I have several saved messages
> from
> you here, mid-March.
> 
> > members who made their candidacy known, it wasn't clear when we were
> > discussing rules/criteria/strategies for the selection process who
> > had a vested interest and who didn't. A shame when we seem so
> > concerned about transparency.
> 
> Sorry, I'm missing your point.  We discussed criteria and there was a list
> of items that then got folded into the call for nominees.  What vested
> interests are you talking about with respect to that?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance