[governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi,
I probably shouldn't speak up on this issue since I am one of the 
candidates but what the heck...

I still try to figure out what I find more messy, recalling a nomcom 
decision or sticking to a nomcom decision that may have been affected by 
unclear rules.
It is obvious that a discussion of the desirable number of nominees 
would have a direct influence on the nomcom's decision making.
What I don't understand is in what way an earlier publication of the 
candidate's statements would have affected the nomcom's outcome. Or is 
the issue yet another one?

jeanette
Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> 
> Le 30 avr. 08 à 17:45, Avri Doria a écrit :
> 
>>
>> On 30 Apr 2008, at 11:35, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>> compliant with out own charter.
>>
>>
>> i do not see any way in which the nomcom was non-compliant except 
>> perhaps that it did not have a non voting chair who was separate from 
>> the nomcom itself.  but since no one was wiling to volunteer for this 
>> task (myself included) I am not sure what else can be done.
> 
> I don't see the absence of a non voting chair as an issue. We do what we 
> can with our limited resources.
> 
>> The rule about publishing the names and info of candidates does not 
>> specify when it is done, so as long as it is done before the names are 
>> sent on and the nomcom blinks out of existence, i do not understand 
>> what is missing.
> 
> I don't see your point here. Whatever way one might understand when it 
> is done (and note that the nomcom already published its results on this 
> list), we have the precedent of the previous candidates selection.
> 
>> It is all well and good if another  group wishes to delay, I still 
>> recommend against it for this caucus.  In fact I would recommend 
>> against waiting for the announcement for that group as well.
> 
> Why?
> 
> In any case, you just informed thus in the mean time that the deadline 
> would be 21 May. This leaves us plenty of time to do what I've proposed. 
> Let's see if there are other people against it, and what are their 
> reasons - if we have some explanations, then we might at least 
> understand why we shouldn't use this opportunity).
> 
> Best,
> Meryem
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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