[governance] Re: Nomcom reform

[devonrb at gmail.com]

So why not put all the procedures mentioned here in one document and then we can review and agree on a final framework going forward.
Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:56:11 
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom reform

Hi Bill,

I expect it is true of any of us who take on a public task as a volunteer that it is not heartening to have people criticize the work you did for free.  Nonetheless, my experience has taught me that it is something most volunteers need to deal with.  I expect that most people who do volunteer do it because there is something they think needs to be done and they think they can help do it, and that few of them do it for the kudos or praise of the  of the non-volunteers.

I think you may be mistaken over the reason this Nomcom was set up or when it was set-up. 
Specifically from <http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2011-06/msg00140.html>

> 	• From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> 	• To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> 	• Subject: [governance] New nomcom begins work
> 	• Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:40:42 +0800


> The recently-appointed IGC nominating committee is about to begin work on selecting IGC nominees for the IGF MAG.


avri

On 4 Feb 2012, at 05:13, William Drake wrote:

> Hi
> 
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and people are disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom have made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their report once finalised will be published on the IGC website.
> 
> One imagines it's not quite heartening for nomcom members to do a bunch of free labor for the community and then come in for immediate criticism of various kinds.  If there are particular candidates who weren't selected  due to unfair consideration that's one thing, although it'd be rather hard to get into a post hoc group discussion of it without risking treading on some sensitivities.  Either way, the process points clearly are worth contemplating and nailing down as agree practice going forward.
> 
> According to http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process
> 
> NomCom Process Details:
> 
> 	• Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that this wasn't done in this case, so the nomcom put in place for the WGIGF selections remained.  I had to dig through old main to find the one message in which the members were listed:
> 
> Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline Morris.  However, in this cycle I saw this message from Jacquiline:
> 
> From: Jacqueline Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>
> 
> The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself.
> 
> Which puzzled me; what happened to the others, and who is Thomas, he wasn't listed in the prior grouping?
> 
> Whenever possible, one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates.
> 	• At least 25 volunteers, i.e. 5 volunteers for each nomcom seat, are required for running the random process.
> 	• A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously.
> 
> Again, I believe this was done for the noncom for WGIGF but not for this one.
> 
> 	• All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen.
> 
> Should we do a revision, I would add to this that nomcom members who work directly with a candidate should recuse themselves from such discussions.  I don't know whether that happened with the WGIGF selection process, when it should have.
> 
> 	• Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made
> 
> Done long ago for MAG but that text should have been unearthed and followed.
> 
> 	• All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will their applications and other information
> 
> Memory may be failing me, but I believe this was the practice in earlier MAG app rounds and could easily have been followed here.
> 
> 	• The nomcom chair will put out a report after the selection giving a description of the internal processes used in the selection.
> 
> Pending
> 
> 	• Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made.
> 
> If so, then the WGIGF nomcom was gone and I don't recall how we ended up with a nomcom of apparently two people thereafter.
> 
> However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions.
> 
> Did that perhaps happen?
> 
> 	• There is no limit on the number of nomcoms an individual may serve on.
> 
> Unless we have a strong conviction that agreed processes were not followed and that in consequence this (mis)shaped the selection process in a manner that was prejudicial to certain applicants, I wouldn't see the purpose of doing an appeal process and then confusing UN NY in a couple weeks with a message asking them to disregard the names submitted, here's a new list (if that were the outcome).  Probably would not build CS credibility, and might make us the particular focus of WGIGF discussions on the need to clarify procedures.  But clearly we should take the opportunity to tweak the charter language and to ensure that future noncoms are fully compliant with each step that's been laid down…
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t