Re: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> writes:

> The fact that nomcom might not talk to one or another particular
> person that someone thinks is essential is a concern that I do not
> find compelling.  Nomcom talks to lots and lots of people.  The idea
> that a single person has highly special insight into a candidate is
> something we should find troubling.  That gives that one person too
> much leverage over a candidacy.

This view misses an extremely important point. The most valuable
source of information the nomcom can obtain about a person may well
come from a very limited set of persons. In particular, the best input
comes from:

 - someone who knows the candidate well (having worked with them
   closely in different situations)

 - someone who knows what kind of skills are needed to do the job for
   which the candidate is being considered.

 - someone willing to speak frankly, honestly, and in detail (not just
   "would make a great AD" type comments) to the candidate's strengths
   and weaknesses related to the duties they will be expected to carry
   out.

Thus, a single person can have some extremely important information.
That is not to say that one person should have too much sway. Armed
with specific detailed information about a candidate, the nomcom can
(and should) dig deeper to confirm what it has heard.

One of the biggest difficulties the nomcom has is in getting detailed
feedback that talks to the candidates strengths and weaknesses related
to specific skills that are needed for the position for which they are
beiing considered.

Thomas