That is simple. I like simple. A topic worth discussing.
Mark. On 16/Jun/19 16:58, Owen DeLong wrote: > Personally, I think that we should simply eliminate the geographic > restrictions on board seats and have a single AfriNIC board elected > from qualified candidates from within the region, regardless of where > in the region they come from. > > Owen > > >> On Jun 16, 2019, at 4:39 AM, Dewole Ajao <dew...@forum.org.ng >> <mailto:dew...@forum.org.ng>> wrote: >> >> Since we are on the topic of "reforming" NomCom, I wonder why our >> bylaws state that candidates for appointment to NomCom shall *not* be >> domiciled in a region where an open seat is being contested. I think >> a person resident within a region is more likely to know and have >> access to suitably qualified candidates and we should remove this >> restriction as we try to improve the nomination. >> >> If the sole intention of this restriction was to prevent >> favoritism/bias, I think adding transparency to the process will >> quite easily expose such. Or is anyone aware of other justifications >> for having that restriction in place? >> >> Dewole. >> >> On 6/16/2019 11:54 AM, John Walu wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com >>> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is >>> possible that there are situations where “why” should be redacted to >>> protect the confidentiality and dignity of the applicant who was >>> rejected. For example, if the nominating committee had rejected a >>> candidate because he is under indictment and under disciplinary >>> review in his day job for misconduct, I don’t think that nomcom >>> should be the ones to publicly disclose those details. >>> >>> >>> @Owen >>> >>> Its true, we must protect the applicant's privacy. However, we must >>> also enhance the Nomcom's transparency. Imagine a situation where >>> Nomcomm disqualifies candidates because they allegedly did not >>> respond to some email. It is quite difficult really to really prove >>> beyond reasonable it at all such an email was ever sent. It is even >>> harder to prove that it was successfully delivered to the intended >>> recipient. >>> >>> In such a case, Nomcom should publicly say Candidate X was >>> disqualified because they did not respond to an email. (that in >>> itself will discourage and expose a Nomcom that is heavily biased >>> towards knocking out, rather than recruiting board members;-) >>> >>> Perhaps a middle ground that would protect the candidate's privacy >>> while enhancing Nomcom Transparency and accountability would be to >>> seek consent or objection from Candidates - at the point of >>> application - if they would object to the reasons behind their >>> rejection being publicly reported. >>> >>> That way we avoid giving a blank cheque to Nomcom who may make >>> decisions knowing very well that they need NOT explain themselves to >>> anyone (lack of accountability). >>> >>> So lets design and give Nomcomm a Standard Reporting Template to >>> enhance their transparency. They will remain independent and >>> autonomous in the functionality, but they should owe the community >>> an understanding on how they worked hard to raise good candidates >>> for AfriNIC. >>> >>> The report from Nomcomm with respect to the PDWG election is a good >>> start and can be refined and adapted for future Nomcomms. >>> >>> walu. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com >>> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Jun 4, 2019, at 11:34 PM, John Walu <walu.j...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:walu.j...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I believe the deeper question is WHY is there an increasingly >>> smaller candidate slate of those volunteering to serve on >>> Afrinic board, year in year out. >>> > >>> > Two possible answers: >>> > A) Good candidates are avoiding the perceived 'challenging' >>> board /management /community relationships that continue to >>> persist. So nomcom hands are tied and cannot manufacture candidates. >>> > >>> > OR >>> > B) There are actually many good candidates applying BUT the >>> Nomcom 'Black-box' processes is kicking them out and reducing >>> them to 1 or 2 nominees. >>> > >>> > To drill down to the correct answer, I think the Nomcom >>> process needs to be reformed. >>> > >>> > I still do not understand the benefit of having a black box >>> process in the nomination committee where the community has no >>> clue about how many candidates applied, how many got knocked out >>> and why. IF national Presidential election systems are so open >>> about this, why is that it has to remain hidden for Afrinic? >>> > >>> > And I say this as someone who has once served on Nomcomm as >>> well as someone who has once been rejected by some previous >>> Nomcomm (I want to believe it is within my right to share >>> personal information/experience as this is not covered under >>> NDA, but I stand to be corrected ;-) >>> > >>> > At a minimum, we should request that as Nomcom publishes the >>> candidate slate, they should also show a tally (without the >>> names) of how many candidates applied, how many got kicked out, >>> why they were kicked out and how many successfully went thro. >>> >>> In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is >>> possible that there are situations where “why” should be >>> redacted to protect the confidentiality and dignity of the >>> applicant who was rejected. For example, if the nominating >>> committee had rejected a candidate because he is under >>> indictment and under disciplinary review in his day job for >>> misconduct, I don’t think that nomcom should be the ones to >>> publicly disclose those details. >>> >>> > I believe this information can shed some light on the deeper >>> question above of whether indeed we have fewer applicants or our >>> black-box nommcom process is simply kicking them out in order to >>> eventually present a single candidate. >>> >>> My suspicion is that to some degree, both are occurring. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community-Discuss mailing list >>> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss