Don't remember issues with NomCom when I was involved, not these types
of problems at least. Perhaps its time to not worry about which regions
volunteers come from any more.
On 2019/06/16 12:54, John Walu wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is
possible that there are situations where “why” should be redacted to
protect the confidentiality and dignity of the applicant who was
rejected. For example, if the nominating committee had rejected a
candidate because he is under indictment and under disciplinary review
in his day job for misconduct, I don’t think that nomcom should be the
ones to publicly disclose those details.
>>>
@Owen
Its true, we must protect the applicant's privacy. However, we must
also enhance the Nomcom's transparency. Imagine a situation where
Nomcomm disqualifies candidates because they allegedly did not respond
to some email. It is quite difficult really to really prove beyond
reasonable it at all such an email was ever sent. It is even harder
to prove that it was successfully delivered to the intended recipient.
In such a case, Nomcom should publicly say Candidate X was
disqualified because they did not respond to an email. (that in itself
will discourage and expose a Nomcom that is heavily biased towards
knocking out, rather than recruiting board members;-)
Perhaps a middle ground that would protect the candidate's privacy
while enhancing Nomcom Transparency and accountability would be to
seek consent or objection from Candidates - at the point of
application - if they would object to the reasons behind their
rejection being publicly reported.
That way we avoid giving a blank cheque to Nomcom who may make
decisions knowing very well that they need NOT explain themselves to
anyone (lack of accountability).
So lets design and give Nomcomm a Standard Reporting Template to
enhance their transparency. They will remain independent and
autonomous in the functionality, but they should owe the community an
understanding on how they worked hard to raise good candidates for
AfriNIC.
The report from Nomcomm with respect to the PDWG election is a good
start and can be refined and adapted for future Nomcomms.
walu.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 11:34 PM, John Walu <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> I believe the deeper question is WHY is there an increasingly
smaller candidate slate of those volunteering to serve on Afrinic
board, year in year out.
>
> Two possible answers:
> A) Good candidates are avoiding the perceived 'challenging'
board /management /community relationships that continue to
persist. So nomcom hands are tied and cannot manufacture candidates.
>
> OR
> B) There are actually many good candidates applying BUT the
Nomcom 'Black-box' processes is kicking them out and reducing them
to 1 or 2 nominees.
>
> To drill down to the correct answer, I think the Nomcom process
needs to be reformed.
>
> I still do not understand the benefit of having a black box
process in the nomination committee where the community has no
clue about how many candidates applied, how many got knocked out
and why. IF national Presidential election systems are so open
about this, why is that it has to remain hidden for Afrinic?
>
> And I say this as someone who has once served on Nomcomm as well
as someone who has once been rejected by some previous Nomcomm (I
want to believe it is within my right to share personal
information/experience as this is not covered under NDA, but I
stand to be corrected ;-)
>
> At a minimum, we should request that as Nomcom publishes the
candidate slate, they should also show a tally (without the names)
of how many candidates applied, how many got kicked out, why they
were kicked out and how many successfully went thro.
In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is
possible that there are situations where “why” should be redacted
to protect the confidentiality and dignity of the applicant who
was rejected. For example, if the nominating committee had
rejected a candidate because he is under indictment and under
disciplinary review in his day job for misconduct, I don’t think
that nomcom should be the ones to publicly disclose those details.
> I believe this information can shed some light on the deeper
question above of whether indeed we have fewer applicants or our
black-box nommcom process is simply kicking them out in order to
eventually present a single candidate.
My suspicion is that to some degree, both are occurring.
Owen
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
--
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
[email protected] Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
