On 22 Mar 2025, at 0:52, Eliot Lear wrote: > On 21.03.2025 16:25, Michael StJohns wrote: >> On 3/21/2025 7:45 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> I agree with you that the NOMCOM is not required by the RFC to interview every candidate. However, we were told that one reason to do so was that doing the cut of who we interview might actually take more time off the calendar than actually doing every interview because one needs a an agreed process for the cut, and it would contract the timelines for both questionnaire responses and community feedback. >> >> Hi Eliot - >> >> I find the above... sorry - a specious argument. >> The criteria for "fail fast" in selecting people is something that can and should be done before you ever send out the "please volunteer" notices. Then the only argument is whether or not some candidate meets those criteria, and the obvious answer if there's enough of a push back on someone not qualifying (by one or members of the nomcom voting group) is to move them to the "we're going to interview you" queue. >> >> But - YMMV.... > > Indeed, every NOMCOM member's mileage would vary on that point, unless they agreed on those criteria first, and that takes time. And it takes time to do the evaluation across the different positions and come to agreement. The NOMCOM met about once per week in the summer. You could say, “meet more often” but at least this time, it didn't really happen. It is not just meeting more often. It is about doing the work between the meetings. Some people do that work, some don’t. Having more meetings is not necessarily solving the problem. Dean > > Eliot
