Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: publish list of nominees?

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 15:50:22 +0200

Thomas Narten wrote:
...
> In some sense, if the selections being made by the nomcom were
> "obviously" the right ones, we wouldn't be having any of this
> discussion. I suspect that it is because the results are "surprising"
> to some folks is what is driving this apparent call for more
> transparency and/or change.  Or am I misreading the underlying problem
> that needs to be solved?

I think that's about right - it's the equivalent of "show your working"
in an algebra exam. Increase public confidence in the process.

   Brian

---

From: "Schliesser, Benson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:04:56 -0600

> For example, if you have a deadline (say January 1) at which the
> list of confirmed nominees is frozen, what happens if on Jan 10
> (perhaps as a result of seeing the published list) all of the 
> potential
> candidates for some position withdraw?
> 
> Now the list is frozen, the nomcom cannot go find someone else, they'd
> have to leave a vacancy, to be filled sometime after the relevant
> body is appointed.
> 
> That's ridiculous.
> 
> All of this (deadlines, and exposing lists) also needs to consider
> how a nomcom goes about filling a casual vacancy.  Currently 
> we expect it
> to operate just the same way as it does when doing its "normal" job.
> Except it is usually expected to be quicker, as there's usually just
> one position to fill (the same process, compressed).

While I agree that there's an obvious need for an exception procedure, I
don't think that it's fair to call the entire proposal ridiculous.

Instead, I'd suggest that in cases where the nomcom finds that they are
outside of a normal timeline (i.e., all candidates withdraw or there's a
vacancy) the nomcom SHOULD develop a new timeline based on the same
procedures and announce it as the process to be used in the particular
instance.

In other words, if nominal steps include:

-assemble nomcom members
-publish procedures and timeline (i.e., something like this list, with
dates)
-call for nominations
-confirm nominations
-nomination cut-off
-publish confirmed nominations
-solicit public comment on confirmed nominations
-public comment cut-off
-present candidate(s) until confirmed

(or some variation) there's no reason that these steps can't be a) changed
in special cases, or b) used in a compressed timeframe. ..leave that
determination to the nomcom.

-Benson

---

From: "Schliesser, Benson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:12:33 -0600

> Once again, I vehemently object to that approach.
> 
> Decide the principle first is the approach taken by people who know
> they can never succeed if everyone is aware of the details first.

So you're suggesting that we should shoot without knowing what we want to
hit?

I vehemently disagree with your suggestion.

Instead, I'd say that we should decide what the 'ethical' (or whatever)
targets are, and then find the best way to get there. If we find that
getting there poses more problems than it solves, then perhaps the targets
need to be re-thought. In any case this is an open and transparent forum,
and so is probably one of the best places to uncover issues; I don't think
that discussing ideals will 'hide' problems with process, but rather will
definitely give us better clarity in discussing them.

-Benson