A few comments below [MB].
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Joel M. Halpern
<jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Given that we are talking about dynamics of people, controlling the
outcome of the nomcom process with 6 folks, even if those 6 folks were
actually to cooperate, is very dependent upon who they are, who the other 4
are, who the liaisons and chair are, etc.
Rumor claims that on occaison two people who did not even have a vote had
more influence than any sitting members. I believe practice has changed to
reduce that particular problem.
[MB] I believe so. I will note that I personally think one of the
advantages of the current process is that there are number of things that
were intentionally unspecified to allow the nomcom to decide a process they
found most effective. For example, each nomcom can choose whether
non-voting members sit in on interviews. As well, the chair has some
leeway in terms of what decisions they make about the process versus what
they allow the voting members to decide. I think that's important to allow
for flexibility in the management style of the nomcom chair as well as the
level of experience of the voting members with a process of this nature.
For example, if you have a lot of experienced voting members and a chair
that had never served on a nomcom, then likely there's a lot of benefit in
engaging the voting members in a lot of the process discussions. Thus, I
would be concerned about making the process too prescriptive. I think this
aligns with Joel's first point.
[/MB]
I do grant that consistent excessive representation from large
corporations could be a problem. If we want to re-open 3777 for
substantive change, I can live with a change to 1 person per corporation.
I think that the potential benefits from such would probably out-weight the
drawbacks.
[MB] I agree. I think it could be helpful (and I'm not seeing how it would
be harmful, but maybe I'm missing something) to limit the voting members to
1 per affiliation. One question I have though is whether the affiliation of
the Nomcom chair is considered. Personally, I think it ought to. I think
there is the potential for bias, for example if you have a voting member
having the same affiliation as a nomcom chair, in particular if any of the
nominees for the appointments also have the same affiliation. Although,
that would dramatically reduce your pool of potential nomcom chairs, which
is already pretty sparse. So, it's probably a bad idea despite maybe
having a good intention. I'm throwing this out basically, so this is
considered now rather than later IF we are going to update the process.
[/MB]
However, it is not at all clear to me that the benefits of reopening 3777
for substantive change outweigh the VERY large costs of such an activity.
As an example of the complications, we would presumably have to discuss
your alternative selection process proposal. Which would involve looking
at the perverse incentives on the corporations to control their
participation in the pool, and to self-select who they want to see
standing. Ouch.
[MB] Personally, I'm not quite so concerned about this. I possibly didn't
read the proposal closely enough to see how different it is from the
current. But, with the current you run the algorithm to produce 15 names
and then you drop the 3rd in the list if it's in the top 10 and then pick
#11 and so on. Obviously, the algorithm would need to change to perhaps
produce a longer, ordered list. But, I don't see that as a problem.
Although, perhaps I've missed how the algorithm might have changed in the
past several years?
[/MB]
And from experiences we all have been through, I would stronglye xpect
even more complex and difficult discussions if we open the document up to
substantive changes.
[MB] I pretty much agree with Joel. I personally think an incremental
change process (e.g., like was done for open list) is the only way we could
keep this from becoming a task that is unlikely to complete in a reasonable
timeframe. The Nomcom process is challenging enough that changing too many
things at once has the potential for really poor outcomes, in particular,
it means people could be spending way more time trying to understand a new
process as opposed to evaluating community feedback and making selections.
Again, in my experience doing the latter in a timely manner is challenging
enough as is.
[/MB]
Yours,
Joel
On 9/16/14, 1:52 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
Actually, it's worse than that. The number is 3 companies to get 6
slots. At that point, those three companies control the outcome of the
Nomcom. Of course, being too obvious will result in interesting backlash.