Re: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

I would like to take this discussion into a slightly different
direction.

The apparent intent of publishing this list is so the nomcom can get
community feedback on its proposed or possible nominations (depending
upon at exactly what time, and what list, were to be published).

I believe that's not a desirable aim - that is, what people are attempting
to achieve is broken in the first place, so that any mechanism to achieve
it is inappropriate.

While it isn't wrong (and very likely is good) for the nomcom to attempt
to obtain some input on the various nominees, by asking around a bit,
the right way for the nomcom to collect information is for the community
to provide it, unasked.

If we, the community, aren't providing the nomcom with the information
they need to do their work, then we really have no right at all to complain
about the results of their work.

The right way for all of this to be done, is that if you (as a member of
the community) feel that person X would make a good Y, then you ask X if
they'd be interested (just as a courtesy, and to save everyone unnecessary
work), and then if they say yes, or even perhaps, you send a message to the
nomcom and suggest that X should be made a Y.   Then the nomcom can take
the set of X's they are given, get rid of any they consider hopeless
(based upon other feedback, etc), ask whatever is left if they'd be
willing to be considered, do some arm twisting to convince some of them
they they really should allow themselves to be considered, and then set
out making a decision based upon what they have been told in the various
messages from all the different people who thought X would be a good choice,
and any other input they may have been able to collect from the people they
do decide to talk to.

There's no reason that any of the rest of us should know that X is being
considered, if we didn't send in any input, then hard luck, if we did
make some suggestions, then our input will already be being considered.

As to making sure the process is followed - that exactly the kind of thing
that the liaisons should be doing, and reporting back that all is happening
properly, or not (usually with no need for details).   Those reports would
of course appear in the minutes of the meetings of the bodies the liaison
represents - so if a liaison believes that things are a bit wonky
that would be public info fairly quickly.

While I'm ranting about nomcom practices let me also say that I don't
much like the practice of the nomcom sedning out questionaires to
nominees, in which they ask the nominee to explain why they'd be a
good person to be appointed, etc.    We don't need to be getting
people to tell the nomcom all their good points, and why they're
perfect for the job - that should come from those who suggest them
(other than in the case of a self-nomination of course, but that just
falls out of the method).   Asking whether the nominee has the time,
resources, etc, and even (perhaps) what they'd like to do in the role
is OK, but I don't believe the nomcom should be soliciting self praise.

kre