[governance] MAG candidates - publishing details of nominess

[William Drake]

Hi Ian,

Your make a good case for following the model employed in other nomcoms, and
I'd support doing it that way if it's the expressed collective preference on
how to proceed going forward. Might be useful to specify the procedure for
future reference on www.igcaucus.org (I presume we don't want to get into
revising the charter to build this in). The issue in the recent case was
simply that it was a deviation from what had been done previously and
there'd been no prior statement or agreement to the change, so the practice
was out of line with expectations.  Not surprising then that some people
would take note of the change and ask, what's up with that?   But not a big
deal either, just slippage in communication.

Cheers,

Bill


On 4/24/08 12:29 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> One matter the Nomcom needs to discuss further is whether it is appropriate
> or useful to publish lists and/or details of candidates who were nominated
> or who self-nominated for MAG and who were rejected. Although this was done
> last year, I have some substantial reservations about this and in the
> absence of an extremely clear indication from both the list in general and
> from individual candidates in particular that this is appropriate, I think
> our best interests are served by not publishing.
> 
> Firstly, it would not have been clear to the majority of candidates who
> applied this year that their names and detailed nominations might be
> published for all to see. That's not normal practice when applying for
> positions, and in other Nomcoms I have been associated with (ISOC and ICANN)
> is not the practice - reporting mentions number of nominees from regions,
> gender etc and overall stats is the preferred method, but not names of
> candidates who have not been selected.
> 
> I think non publication is a better course of action within IGC for several
> reasons. As regards candidates, it's difficult to get a slate of good
> candidates to select from for CS without self nomination. And some people
> feel a little embarrassed for everyone to know they nominated themselves.
> And of course, many people who nominate do so in good faith but would not
> actually like everyone to know they were rejected if they were not selected.
> 
> 
> And as regards Nomcom members - I think we actually make it more difficult
> to attract Nomcom volunteers if we publish details of rejected candidates.
> Not that I expect assassins on my doorstep, but I do not relish ongoing
> debates on a CS list about the merits and demerits of candidates selected or
> not selected, knowing it is totally inappropriate to be involved as a member
> of the nomcom in such discussions and knowing that those discussions are
> occurring in the absence of any knowledge of the detailed considerations,
> issues, accommodation of differing viewpoints and balancing of perspectives
> that it necessary to come to any agreement in any nomcom.
> 
> So, I believe a CS Nomcom can do its business more effectively if it is not
> required to publish rejected candidate names and details. I also believe
> that, having put in place a good process for ensuring a Nomcom is selected
> randomly and cannot be stacked in any way, CS should let them go about their
> work and trust that they were sensible enough to take into account the range
> of considerations that exist within CS. I don't think it is at all useful
> for us to debate merits of individual candidates and why some were or were
> not selected on this list, and therefore see no need for names to be known.
> 
> A detailed report, however, is essential, covering generalities and
> explaining considerations, criteria and methodologies adopted by the Nomcom.
> That and any ensuing debate should be sufficient.
> 
> I know there will be other opinions on this, and I think we should discuss
> this as regards future policy. For this year, if individual candidates
> indicate a preference for this information not to be published (either on
> the list or in personal email to me if preferred) I will continue to argue
> within Nomcom that this request for privacy should be honoured for this
> year.
> 
> As regards future years, if most people really think that these details
> should be published and there is a clear consensus to do so, it must be made
> known to candidates applying that their details will be published. I believe
> that will reduce the number of nominations, and our effectiveness in
> attracting a good range of candidates, and I am not sure this is balanced by
> any particular positive arising from availability of this information
> outside of the selected Nomcom
> 
> I raise this now so that the general feelings of the list can be covered in
> the report the Nomcom will present next week with ay recommendations as
> regards future actions.
> 




____________________________________________________________
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