A few comments below [MB].
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Given that we are talking about dynamics of people, controlling the outcome of the nomcom process with 6 folks, even if those 6 folks were actually to cooperate, is very dependent upon who they are, who the other 4 are, who the liaisons and chair are, etc.
Rumor claims that on occaison two people who did not even have a vote had more influence than any sitting members. I believe practice has changed to reduce that particular problem.
[MB] I believe so. I will note that I personally think one of the advantages of the current process is that there are number of things that were intentionally unspecified to allow the nomcom to decide a process they found most effective. For example, each nomcom can choose whether non-voting members sit in on interviews. As well, the chair has some leeway in terms of what decisions they make about the process versus what they allow the voting members to decide. I think that's important to allow for flexibility in the management style of the nomcom chair as well as the level of experience of the voting members with a process of this nature. For example, if you have a lot of experienced voting members and a chair that had never served on a nomcom, then likely there's a lot of benefit in engaging the voting members in a lot of the process discussions. Thus, I would be concerned about making the process too prescriptive. I think this aligns with Joel's first point.
[/MB]
I do grant that consistent excessive representation from large corporations could be a problem. If we want to re-open 3777 for substantive change, I can live with a change to 1 person per corporation. I think that the potential benefits from such would probably out-weight the drawbacks.
[MB] I agree. I think it could be helpful (and I'm not seeing how it would be harmful, but maybe I'm missing something) to limit the voting members to 1 per affiliation. One question I have though is whether the affiliation of the Nomcom chair is considered. Personally, I think it ought to. I think there is the potential for bias, for example if you have a voting member having the same affiliation as a nomcom chair, in particular if any of the nominees for the appointments also have the same affiliation. Although, that would dramatically reduce your pool of potential nomcom chairs, which is already pretty sparse. So, it's probably a bad idea despite maybe having a good intention. I'm throwing this out basically, so this is considered now rather than later IF we are going to update the process.
[/MB]
However, it is not at all clear to me that the benefits of reopening 3777 for substantive change outweigh the VERY large costs of such an activity.
As an example of the complications, we would presumably have to discuss your alternative selection process proposal. Which would involve looking at the perverse incentives on the corporations to control their participation in the pool, and to self-select who they want to see standing. Ouch.
[MB] Personally, I'm not quite so concerned about this. I possibly didn't read the proposal closely enough to see how different it is from the current. But, with the current you run the algorithm to produce 15 names and then you drop the 3rd in the list if it's in the top 10 and then pick #11 and so on. Obviously, the algorithm would need to change to perhaps produce a longer, ordered list. But, I don't see that as a problem. Although, perhaps I've missed how the algorithm might have changed in the past several years?
[/MB]
And from experiences we all have been through, I would stronglye xpect even more complex and difficult discussions if we open the document up to substantive changes.
[MB] I pretty much agree with Joel. I personally think an incremental change process (e.g., like was done for open list) is the only way we could keep this from becoming a task that is unlikely to complete in a reasonable timeframe. The Nomcom process is challenging enough that changing too many things at once has the potential for really poor outcomes, in particular, it means people could be spending way more time trying to understand a new process as opposed to evaluating community feedback and making selections. Again, in my experience doing the latter in a timely manner is challenging enough as is.
[/MB]
Yours,
Joel
On 9/16/14, 1:52 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
Actually, it's worse than that. The number is 3 companies to get 6 slots. At that point, those three companies control the outcome of the Nomcom. Of course, being too obvious will result in interesting backlash.