scherrer@mtxinu.COM (Deborah Scherrer) (12/14/89)
The nominating committee is completely independent from the Board, other than the Board appointing a chairperson (someone has to). The basic criteria is "who would do the best job." Usually this means the person is someone who has been around the organization for a while, understands its workings, knows many of the people in the organization, has an idea of the responsibilities of serving on a Board of Directors, and is responsible enough to make sure the duties of the committee are carried out. The chair then selects as many people for the committee as they deem appropriate, based on whatever criteria they choose. The Board gives no other directions to the nominating committee other than they must produce a slate of at least enough competent candidates to fill the slots. How many candidates to nominate, and what criteria to judge them by, are completely at the discretion of the nominating committee. Other than meeting certain timing requirements, nothing else is required by the bylaws. However, the committees generally perform their duties by interviewing existing board members, staff, and potential candidates. They generally discuss the responsibilities of the Board, what the issues are facing the organization, what any current problems might be, who in the organization might be appropriate candidates, and the like. Note in this particular case that the person chosen by the Board to be nominating committee chair had previously expressed an interest in running for the Board (BEFORE being asked to chair). The Board was very aware that, by asking this person to chair the committee, they were putting him in a difficult spot. The Board discussed it with him and. after the discussions, felt comfortable enough that the person could do a good job in spite of the uniqueness of the situation. Deborah Scherrer USENIX Vice President
dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) (12/15/89)
In article <1073@mtxinu.UUCP> scherrer@mtxinu.COM (Deborah Scherrer) writes:
:The nominating committee is completely independent from the Board,
:other than the Board appointing a chairperson (someone has to). The
:basic criteria is "who would do the best job." Usually this means the
:person is someone who has been around the organization for a while,
:understands its workings, knows many of the people in the organization,
:has an idea of the responsibilities of serving on a Board of Directors,
:and is responsible enough to make sure the duties of the committee are
:carried out.
Fair enough so far.
:The chair then selects as many people for the committee as they deem
:appropriate, based on whatever criteria they choose.
Here the Board abdicates its responsibility to the organization.
Nominations are important and the quality of the nominees depends on
the quality of the nominating committee.
:Note in this particular case that the person chosen by the Board to be
:nominating committee chair had previously expressed an interest in
:running for the Board (BEFORE being asked to chair). The Board was
:very aware that, by asking this person to chair the committee, they
:were putting him in a difficult spot. The Board discussed it with him
:and. after the discussions, felt comfortable enough that the person
:could do a good job in spite of the uniqueness of the situation.
In this particular case the person asked by the Board had two choices,
decline the nomination as nominating committee chair or decide that it
was more important to head the nominating committee and forego running
for the Board. Anything else leads to the kind of controversy which
is now starting and which will probably continue. It is bound to hurt
the organization. If Rob Kolstad' reported suggestion had been
followed then the operation of the nominating committee would have
been essentially clerical and the membership of the committee would
have been less important. But the Board decided to ask the committee
to make judgements about the possible nominees. They also must have
told the chair of the committee that it was ok to nominate himself.
Bad show.
:Deborah Scherrer
:USENIX Vice President
--
Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility
dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu City College of New York
dan@ccnysci.uucp New York, NY 10031
dan@ccnysci.bitnet (212)690-6868shore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) (12/15/89)
In article <3806@ccnysci.UUCP> dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) writes: >Here the Board abdicates its responsibility to the organization. >Nominations are important and the quality of the nominees depends on >the quality of the nominating committee. Actually, what bothers me about all this is that the nominations that come out of the committee are largely irrelevant, given that it is trivial to petition to be on the ballot (*5* signatures?!) and that in the past nominations from the committee and nominations through petition haven't been distinguished on the ballot. -- Melinda Shore shore@mtxinu.com Mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (12/16/89)
In article <1074@mtxinu.UUCP>, shore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) writes: > Actually, what bothers me about all this is that the nominations > that come out of the committee are largely irrelevant, given that it > is trivial to petition to be on the ballot (*5* signatures?!) and > that in the past nominations from the committee and nominations > through petition haven't been distinguished on the ballot. In many volunteer organizations, the trick is finding people who are willing to serve, though perhaps only if their arms are twisted enough. It's rare that people are clamoring for a seat on the board; for most folks, their attitude is more ``well, I guess it's my turn to do the work now''.
trb@haddock.ima.isc.com (Andrew Tannenbaum) (12/17/89)
In article <1074@mtxinu.UUCP> shore@mtxinu.com (Melinda Shore) writes: > Actually, what bothers me about all this is that the nominations > that come out of the committee are largely irrelevant, given that it > is trivial to petition to be on the ballot (*5* signatures?!) and > that in the past nominations from the committee and nominations > through petition haven't been distinguished on the ballot. There are two ways to interpret this. One way bothers me. 1- It's easy to get on the ballot anyway, why should someone who was reject by the nominating committee care? 2- It's easy to get on the ballot anyway, why should the nominating committee be so rude as to reject qualified candidates? If it only takes 5 signatures to get on the ballot and committee-nominated candidates are not distinguished from other candidates on the ballot, then practically, the nominating committee only serves to ensure that no slots are overlooked, though more covertly, it serves to screen or endorse candidates. (Btw, I think it's good that it's easy to get on the ballot.) I would think that the function of a nominating committee would be to ensure that a slate of qualified candiates exists. I can't understand why a nominating committee would take the responsibility to reject qualified candidates. If this is their role, the committee should be called the candidate screening committee, the voting committee, or perhaps the electoral college. I suggest that USENIX address the question "what is the function of the nominating committee," and that they ensure that they are not insulting qualified volunteers in their nominating process - is it really that easy for USENIX to find qualified volunteers, that they can insult candidates? Andrew Tannenbaum Interactive Cambridge, MA +1 617 661 7474
peter@sug.std.com (Peter Salus) (05/20/91)
As has been already posted, the USENIX Association has named me chairman of the Nominating Committee for the 1992 Board of Director elections. I have requested several Association members to serve with me. This is to announce that the Committee is made up of the following (there will be a similar announcement in ;login:) Peter H. Salus, Sun User Group, chairman Marc D. Donner, IBM Research Andrew Hume, AT&T Bell Labs Charles Sauer, Dell Computer Elizabeth Zwicky, SRI International I urge anyone interested in serving on the USENIX Board of Directors or wishing to suggest someone to the committee to get in touch with me, either via email (peter@sug.org; peter@uunet.uu.net) or in person at the Nashville Conference. I believe that all the committee members will be in Nashville, and will be most interested in talking to prospective candidates. It may be worthwhile to mention that sevice on the Board is no lark and requires work and a serious time commitment. Peter -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sun User Group, Inc; Suite 315; 1330 Beacon St.; Brookline, MA 02146 voice +1 617 232-0514 fax +1 617 232-1347
shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) (05/20/91)
[]
Does the association intend to differentiate, on the ballot or
anywhere else, nominees selected by the committee and nominees
who get on the ballot by petition (*5* signatures)?
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@theory.tn.cornell.edupeter@sug.std.com (Peter Salus) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.154624.7781@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes: >[] >Does the association intend to differentiate, on the ballot or >anywhere else, nominees selected by the committee and nominees >who get on the ballot by petition (*5* signatures)? >-- While the Committee's defined task is to report to the membership (not to the Board of Directors), I think that it is important to note that (a) in 1988 and in 1990 there was no differentiation on the ballot of the source of a nominee's name; (b) Melinda's "or anywhere else" is a problem: obviously, names of people nominated by petition at the January 1992 San Fancisco meeting will not have appeared on the Nominating Committee's Report -- clearly this is a "differentiation." If Melinda means "will they be stigmatized in some way" on the final list of candidates, on the ballot, or in ;login:," I certainly hope not. USENIX has been extremely democratic in the past. The electorate has: elected those nominated by the committee not elected those nominated by the committee elected those nominated by petition not elected those nominated by petition Peter -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sun User Group, Inc; Suite 315; 1330 Beacon St.; Brookline, MA 02146 voice +1 617 232-0514 fax +1 617 232-1347
shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) (05/21/91)
[]
I'm not really concerned about candidates having to bear the
unspeakable shame of being nominated by petition rather than by
committee; my question stems from confusion over the role of the
committee. My recollection is that the last nominating committee did
an enormous amount of work, and I wonder what that means given that
anybody (Biff, for example) can come up with 5 signatures on their own
to get onto the ballot. At this point, having the committee only makes
sense if it is hugely proactive, and even then I have some
reservations about the whole process.
Also, are there members of the nominating committee who are planning
on running for the board themselves?
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@theory.tn.cornell.edupeter@sug.std.com (Peter Salus) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May20.195837.20806@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes: >[] >Also, are there members of the nominating committee who are planning >on running for the board themselves? >-- I have made not having an intention to run a condition of service. I am not going to run, and the other members of the committee have assured me that they do not intend to run. P -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sun User Group, Inc; Suite 315; 1330 Beacon St.; Brookline, MA 02146 voice +1 617 232-0514 fax +1 617 232-1347