Nominating committee speaks

[Wendy Thrash]

It has been suggested by some of the committee members that one of us
should reply to some of the comments made in this newsgroup.  Perhaps
because I have absolutely no political aspirations of any kind, I have
[been] volunteered to do so.

The committee was formed some time ago; we had our first face-to-face
meeting at Baltimore Usenix.  We were instructed to nominate a slate
of candidates, including candidates for all the officer positions, and
at least four at-large candidates.  We were specifically _not_ instructed
to nominate everyone who expressed interest, though we were not
instructed not to do so.

We interviewed current and former board members and the executive director,
to get a feeling for what it takes to do the job.  We sent questionnaires
to prospective candidates, and in most cases followed up with at least
a brief interview.  Requests for prospective candidates were published
in the organization's newsletter and on Usenet.

One thing worth noting is that we began with an assumption that all our
nominations for officers would come from the current board.  In the end,
five current board members were nominated for the four officer positions.

This left the at-large positions.  We nominated eight people for those
positions, from a final pool of around twelve potential candidates.
(Some people whose names had been put forth withdrew from consideration,
or decided to run by petition rather than bothering to go through the
committee.)

Now I'd like to address some of the issues that have been raised:

1) Why insult a qualified candidate by failing to nominate him or her?

   In one sense, any member of the organization who can garner five
   signatures on a petition is a qualified candidate for the board.
   So, in that sense, the only way to avoid rejecting "qualified"
   candidates is by nominating anyone who shows the slightest interest.
   That was not our charter.

   Note also that the committee did _not_ release the names of people
   who were considered for nomination but not nominated.  When the final
   ballot is prepared, those who are nominated by petition will appear
   along with those nominated by the committee, with no mark of endorsement.
   Anyone who wishes to boost his or her chances for election by claiming
   to have been rejected by the committee may do so without fear of
   contradiction from us; that information is, as far as we are concerned,
   confidential.

2) Why the lack of pure academic types on the nomination list?

   Because we were not presented with many pure academic types as
   possibilities.  (I hope those academic types who were nominated by
   us will not take this to mean that I think them "impure.")

3) Why did we nominate our chairman?

   I expressed some concern about this possibility at our first meeting.
   I was assured that the issue had been raised when our chairman was
   selected, much as Deborah Scherrer posted here.  I believe I was the
   most concerned of the committee members, but this explanation satisfied
   me.  Our chairman was then considered along with the other candidates.
   It was very important to me that we not nominate him at the expense of
   someone else we would otherwise have nominated, and my concerns were
   satisfied on that point when we agreed to nominate eight candidates.

4) Should there be a nominating committee at all?  Should all nominations
   be by petition?  Should the number of signatures required be raised?
   Lowered?

   I have personal positions on these questions, but the committee has none.
   The answers are up to the Board, and, ultimately, to the membership.