Re: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>]

I think that this does not provide for adequate negative feedback.
(Before continuing, I am well aware that someone who has managed to offend 
no-one is probably actually a bad choice.  The nomcom is positioned will to 
evaluate the significance of the negative input.)
Asking active participants for feedback without naming names will:
a) cause to be omitted folks who may not leap to mind but are good choices
b) cause to be omitted from even the most negative feedback information 
about folks who the responder feels are so bad noone would ever be considered
c) cause to be omitted from many peoples responses negative feedback on a 
larger set of "unlikely" people.
I know that when asked for opinions without a list being presented, there 
are far fewer people I will mention as "bad choices" than might appear on a 
list being considered by others.
I have also been asked to express opinion about people who upon 
consideration I thought were good candidates, but would not have mentioned 
without prompting.

In order to get decent feedback, the current procedure stomps on the 
confidentiality line (the committee is doing what it must.  Whether that 
exceeds what we told it is not a debate I want to have.)  This has been 
true for several years.
I think we would be much better served by simply making the list of folks 
who might be being considered public as soon as practical.
Yes, this provides a little bit of public visibility into the internal 
activities of the nomcom.  No, I do not think that is a good result.  BUt I 
think the trade-off is necessary.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 11:09 PM 4/3/2002 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>   | One approach might be to send out queries to all of the working group
>   | chairs in the area, plus other significant people.
>
> Seems reasonable to me?
>
>   | But if you're
>   | going to do that, you come close to making the list public anyway.  So
>   | why not making it public at that point?
>
> Only if the query actually mentions names.  It need not.  It can just
> remind the people that an AD position in the X area is up for selection,
> and ask if there are any people who would be particularly suited to the
> job, any people who would be not a good idea to appoint, and a list of
> the qualities that are thought to be necessary for someone to be selected
> as the relevant AD.
>
> Ideally, those should (at least look like)personal messages - not a form
> letter ("To all Ads...") - human nature suggests that you're going to get
> better replies if it looks to the recipient as if their opinion is valued
> and sought explicitly, rather than they're just one of a crowd that is
> being asked.
>
> Further, the message could offer to disclose a list of possible appointees
> provided the recipient agrees to keep them confidential, and if the response
> requests that list, then send it - the actual nominees being considered, and
> a few more (often people who were suggested but declined).
>
> I recall being interviewed about some AD position some years ago where
> that was done (don't remember which AD slot, don't recall who the names
> were, never did find out which were the ring ins), and thought it a
> reasonably effective way.   Provided the person receiving the list has
> already agreed to keep it confidential, this is not unreasonable.