On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Either way, these early apps point to a tweak we
should make
to the Proposed Process. We don't presently
say anything
about how apps will be allocated to the up to six
slots.
Chuck: Not sure I agree here. My
understanding is the following: 1) We say that the SGs decide who, if any,
will be allocated to four slots; 2)the Council will decide on the other two
slots. Do you think we need to be more explicit about that?
The process document reflects the state of the DT's discussion
as of last Wednesday, at which point we'd sort of said ok we (DT/Council/ET)
will figure out next how exactly the allocation of applications to slots will
be done, and we're debating that in the DT now. But here I'm trying to
look at it from an applicant's point of view, and in that context I'm
wondering if they wouldn't want more of a sense of what happens after they hit
send. I know I've had communication with someone who's considering applying
but would like more clarity. Presumably we don't want to deter
applications by fostering uncertainty, unless it's unavoidable.
Perhaps we don't need to specify all the gory
details, but at
a minimum it would be helpful if the text asked
applicants to
say which SG, if any, they'd like to be nominated
by. (If
having been asked they still give no preference
the
Evaluation Team or Council-TBD--would have to make
a
determination in accordance with a procedure still
to be
settled and proposed by the DT). In these
cases we have a
CORE person and an IPR lawyer so maybe it's
straightforward,
but maybe not...
Chuck: I have
several concerns about asking applicants to specify which slot they want: 1)
It would require us to more carefully define the slots to applicants so they
could make an informed decision and I don't think there is enough time for
to do that or to answer questions that would arrise; 2) some applicants will
likely choose a slot or slots for which we don't think they fit; 3) if we
did ask applicants to choose a slot or slots, I think SGs and the Council
for the two open slots should still have the option to endorse a candidate
for a slot they didn't choose, so what would the advantage be of asking
candidates to choose? 4) in general, I think asking candidates to choose
slots adds complexity that we do not have time for without commensorate
value.
Asking them to indicate if they see themselves as and wish to
be endorsed by any particular SG would make their desires clearer and help us
avoid doing something they object to, unless it can't be helped. Let's
say someone works for an entity that's nominally in SG x but is really into
the issues and orientation of SG y, with which s/he collaborates
closely and might expect stronger support than from SG x. Simply asking
which if any SG are you seeking the endorsement of would provide a clarifying
default. But of course, if ET and/or Council decides the candidate
really does fit SG y rather than x, or should/not be treated as an
unaffiliated person, ok, we need not be bound by his/her
indication.
I'm not going to hari kari if Council prefers to do it another way, but
have come to think that it'd be nicer to candidates if we simply ask them if
they have a preference, and that it might be useful in assessing applicants
from folks with complex profiles.