On 6/27/2013 3:50 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
However, before getting into that I'd like to hear from
folks who've been on or chaired nomcoms. I know a lot of
it is done remotely, but how important is the f2f part
that happens during meetings? Would it really be ok if
say 5 voting members could never come to a meeting
whilst serving? (And I think that'd not be an unlikely
outcome.)
I've been a voting member on 3 and liaison on 1. I can't imagine a
nomcom process succeeding without a significant amount of face-to-face time.
There are two reasons. One is creating basic working relationships for
this type of personnel selection topic -- especially when few of the
members have much experience with such an exercise. Much of nomcom is
about haggling. Trade-offs about and among candidates. Debating what's
true. Debating what matters. Debating combinatorials for slates.
All of that is made fundamentally easier -- and easier does not mean
easy -- when each member has a sense of knowing the other members. (As
I recall, there are /many/ research studies about this sort of thing.)
The second reason is interviewing nomination candidates. There is a
'feel' for a candidate that one can get from f2f that is much harder to
obtain with only a voice call. That said, recent nomcoms seem to have
de-valued f2f interviews.
So, yes, much of nomcom is thru voice conferencing. But I believe the
nature of the decision-making nomcom does requires the group to have had
significant face-time.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net