Le jeudi, 30 novembre 2017, 14.03:15 h CET Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> Having said that though, I'm also not convinced that the current
> completely private system is working very well.
> Speaking as someone who's been a candidate for a number of past
> appointments now, the process feels too much like a black box to me.

The TC has had this feedback from multiple persons. There's clearly room for 
improvement here.

> You submit your candidacy, you answer some questions, and then several
> weeks or months later you learn that you haven't been chosen; and that's
> it. I know from private conversations with certain TC members that the
> reason for my non-selection was something along the lines of "there were
> other people which seemed like stronger candidates", but none of that
> was very clear, nor was it officially communicated.

(Not speaking specifically about you) An aspect to keep in mind is that the TC 
is not _obligated_ to fill two of its seats; according to §6.2.{2,3,4}, the TC 
can freely navigate between 6 and 8 seats. As the TC nomination is a 
coöptation (in that it picks project members it is willing to work together 
with), there's a strong "personal fit" aspect that comes into play, and that 
is both hard to explain, and to justify.

In practice, the TC nomination is kinda like a hiring process. There are hard 
facts, there are hard and soft skills, and there's personal fit. Not all of it 
is justifiable, or explainable, so I'm not in favour of asking the TC to 
publish the ins and outs of its coöptation decisions, be it publicly or even 
just towards the nominees. I'm well aware it is not comfortable for nominees 
though (and I experienced the same frustrations back then).


Reply via email to