Re: publish which list of nominees?

[John C Klensin <john+nomcom@jck.com>]

--On Monday, 01 April, 2002 09:44 -0500 Theodore Tso
<tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

>...
> Secondly, it's just as possible that the reason why the nomcom
> needed to go headhunting is because a candidate accepted, but
> then later discovers that he/she doesn't have management
> approval for the 30 hour/weekc commitment.  So there are in
> fact many reasons why the nomcom might need to go into
> headhunting mode, and so you can't infer that much information
> the fact that nomcom was headhunting in any case.

Ted,

Having never been on a nomcom, this is just idle speculation,
but I would assume that, even with reasonable candidates in
front of it, a nomcom might well do a certain amount of
"headhunting" out of ordinary due dilligence.  As just a
superficial example, I have been asked in interviews (although
not, if I recall, this year) to identify the person who I
thought would be the absolutely best for a particular position
if he or she could be talked into it (without disclosing whether
the nomcom was already looking at that individual).  Similarly,
I've been asked if I could identify the most likely
up-and-coming people in a particular area for future
consideration.

If a nomcom chooses to ask those sorts of questions, and a few
names come up many times, I would expect the nomcom to try to
recruit those people onto the list of people to be considered,
even if they had not been formally/externally suggested as
candidates and even if the pool already included people who
seemed to be satisfactory.

If that reasoning is correct, the late addition of a name to the
list does not imply anything at all about presumed deficiencies
in the people added to the list earlier.

     john