Hi, On 1/9/15 7:20 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> For example and in the hope of being a bit less vague, I personally > >> see no need for liaisons to sit in on candidate interviews, to see > >> supposedly-confidential candidate questionnaires, to see community > >> input about particular candidates, or to participate in Nomcom > >> discussions or be exposed to correspondence about particular > >> candidates or candidate choice rankings. And I see some disadvantages > >> to the quality and breadth of input the Nomcom is likely to receive to > >> their doing so. Do you disagree? > > > Speaking only to the above, during the Nomcom I ran, I found it useful > > to pair up the interviewers and used every resource available. That > > I did the same thing (as did Allison and Matt), and had the same problem > getting enough interviewer resources. Had I not had the liasons, a number of > interviews might not have been possible. > > I want to emphasize that I never planned to have the liason lead or take > notes from an interview; but during nomcom discussion there might have been > one or two times when the liason had a memory that helped clarify or put into > better context what was said. > It seems to me that pragmatism needs to be kept in mind. For one, I'd like to know if there has been an actual problem where someone (or better yet someoneS) has actually withheld commentary because of risk of retribution due to a liaison reading the content. On top of that, I wonder if NOMCOM chairs could comment if they ever felt that a liaison behaved inappropriately. That is- is there really a problem to fix? If not, let's please not add process to deal with nonexistent problems. If something becomes a problem we have the means to address it. Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature