On 3/6/2013 9:05 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.
I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process
just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did).
It has always been an election process. Nomcom does the voting.
Candidates formulate their questionnaire responses and their Nomcom
interviews in a manner to cast themselves in the most appealing light.
They've decided they want the job, so they seek to convince Nomcom to
choose them.
The process is designed to mitigate organized electioneering, attack of
other candidates, and the rest of the hype and mayhem that most/all of
us detest. And even penalizes candidates who engage in it.
So forgive me for indulging in a cliche'd reference, be we are merely
haggling price here.
Price matters. The methods used by a candidate matter. But in this
case, the document already is part of the process. The only change
would be in who gets to see it.
Arguments against having the community see it are limited to a concern
about candidate privacy and a concern that it will engender public
commentary about the person.
The first doesn't make any sense; what specifically needs to be kept
private from the questionnaire response?
The second is mitigated by simply prohibiting it.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net