[NCUC-EC] Selection of candidates for Policy Committee representatives

[Mueller, Milton L]

My opinion is that the PC has turned into a bottleneck and gatekeeper. I see a need for a PC chair to keep things moving, but I see no need for a committee with a limited and exclusive membership.

Policy positions should have the support of the entire SG, or at least preponderance of support among all members who actively participate in their development. Our biggest problem is never “who should be on the committee,” but is always “who will actually do the work?” It’s inevitable that we will appoint people to the committee who don’t do work, and it’s inevitable that there will be people not appointed to the committee willing to work. In my recollection, the PC was always open to anyone who wanted to volunteers, and should remain so.

In short, I think this candidate selection process is a waste of time. Appoint a chair to manage the process and allow anyone who is willing to contribute to participate.

--MM

From: NCUC-EC [mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Renata Aquino Ribeiro
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 6:07 PM
To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
Cc: Exec. Comm <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] Selection of candidates for Policy Committee representatives

Hi Michael

Thanks for your replies.
A deliberation call is actually something recommended on our procedures in case of a tie, which is what we have right now for the 2nd choice of PC NCSG since Ines didn't choose between Farell or Kris.
We haven't had the other 2 EC chime in yet, so this is where we are at.

On the subject of appropriateness, I think we work as team and our list archive is open so we can receive input from whoever at any time.
The expertise, however, accumulated by Chairs do come in handy for us to find out not only details about this process but many others regarding policymaking in NCUC and NCSG.

I guess one could say that maybe our eye should be on the long run, not just on this immediate selection.

Best,

Renata





On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks. That's nice of them to take the time - but I don't think it's
necessarily something we need.

There's two ways that this can go. Either they're going to express
support for a particular candidate(s), or they're going to provide
some background and insight into the current composition of the PC,
and what's needed, and such.

If the first case - I think it would be inappropriate. I think we need
to have our own process: they have their reps, we have ours, and I'd
worry a bit that if they expressed their opinions it would unduly sway
people from making up their own minds based on the candidates.

If the latter - I guess there's no harm, but I also don't really see a
strong need. I feel like there's already a lot of background material
to aid in our decision-making.

But that's just me - of course - and I've already weighed in on the
candidates myself.

Michael

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
<raquino at gmail.com<mailto:raquino at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear EC
>
> We received a kind offer from PC NCSG Chair to participate on a call
> with us to help deliberate on these candidates
>
> So far we still haven't concluded the process and PC NCSG Chair
> contribution would be very interesting.
>
> If EC agrees to a call we can talk via Skype to arrange it.
>
> Thank you
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org>
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20171201/33e013b3/attachment.html>