On 07/04/2016 17:37, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/7/2016 9:30 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 7 Apr 2016, at 16:07, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And I'll suggest that this is not an issue that one should try to
'game', such as by trying to obscure the choice by floating various
venue possibilities or otherwise hoping that we haven't signaled the
choice to a specific city/hotel.
Such a process served us well in getting feedback on members of the
I* until recently.
I would have thought that it would pick up problems of the type that
was identified last night without compromising our commercial
position too badly.
Stewart, if you are referring to the gaming that used to be done,
when soliciting information about nomcom candidates, by padding the
list of names with various non-candidates, in my experience on several
nomcoms, no it did not work well at all.
d/
Of course one's mileage may vary. Whilst I prefer the new system, my
recollection from the two Nomcoms I served on was that the padded
systems worked well enough.
The padding is somewhat different in this case because the padding may
actually be not fully researched candidates and the input may mean that
you avoid additional work reviewing a city that would otherwise be
dropped at a later stage.
Stewart