On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
wrote:
A couple of things.
The nomcom is not either individually nor collectively the "hiring
manager" for the IETF. It neither makes the final decision (that's the
CB's call), nor does it direct the work of the "hired" entity.
The Nomcom is and always has been a "search committee" and as such it
gathers and winnows candidates before proposing them for confirmation.
Indeed, there is no bar to the Nomcom proposing multiple candidates for a
position and allowing the CB to choose its preference - that hasn't
actually been done, but its not barred.
I think that's a fair point. I've adjusted her suggested text accordingly.
The interview should be used to fill in details not clear from the
questionnaire, so matters of fairness should be addressed when crafting the
questions, not later when you get around to talking with the candidate.
Generally, the interview should be used to evaluate the BS factor of the
answers from the questionnaire and not delve into new fields or hobby
horses of the interviewers.
The questionnaire is actually not codified in BCP 10 anywhere. Does anyone
think it needs to be?
The digression to "thinking slow" is interesting, but somewhat trendy.
Next year there will be another interview and decision method that will be
trendy and its unclear why this "thinking slow" would be a better choice
than next year's flavor and why it should be immortalized in the next
version of 3777. I would instead focus on the virtues of clarity,
completeness and fairness and leave the rest of it to the best abilities of
the chosen Nomcom. In any event, attempting to "program" the Nomcom
members to a specific behavior pattern will be unsuccessful.
I tend to agree with this, though since we do have an appendix that talks
about "oral tradition", there's probably little harm in including this
stuff in a similar appendix. We could even label it clearly as something
that worked well for NomCom 2013.
Allison - your desire to have 3+ interviewers per interviewee is going to
contribute to slowing down the process even more. At this point I see us
starting to try and begin the process a full two years before confirmation.
(Yup - hyperbole, but seriously, we're spending WAY too much calendar time
from first indication of candidacy to selection).
I also disagree with this. I served on NomComs 2013 and 2014, we did it
this way, and it worked rather well.
-MSK