[PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI

[Stephanie Perrin]

will do!
SP

On 2015-11-24 11:57, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Stefanie,
>
> I wasn't thinking of assuming any formal mentor role. Just a lightweight approach to helping folks settle in to the work of the SCI, become acquainted with how and why the committee gets requests from Council, etc...
>
> But if you have any ideas that would be helpful to you in developing a mentor program, sure..., share your thoughts (perhaps off-list).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> Sent from mobile
>
>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> That is a great offer Amr, can we use it as a trial to see what folks need in a mentor, how it works best etc.?  Maybe the final candidates wont want this at all but I would be surprised...
>> cheers steph
>>
>>> On 2015-11-24 11:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'd be happy to help any NCSG member who is a newcomer to SCI settle in.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> Sent from mobile
>>>
>>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This would be a great opportunity to demonstrate a mentoring project.  Both Stef and Karel are relative newbies.  A mentor assigned to help could be very useful to them, and provide confidence to the PC.  History is useful to know in these exercises, and dont ask someone to read oodles of transcripts from previous exercises....
>>>> cheers steph
>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-11-24 9:22, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Yeah?, I don?t know Samuel at all. I can?t say I know Karel either, except for briefly meeting him in Dublin, which isn?t a very good reason to prefer him over Samuel.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don?t recall there ever being a rush to join the SCI before. Somehow, Tapani made the job sound sexy. :) My only reason for choosing Karel over Samuel is that my impression of his is that he is a relatively new member, and seems eager. I figured it wouldn?t be a bad idea to encourage him to stay engaged.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the future, it might not be a bad idea to develop a process by which volunteers provide some kind of brief explanation why they may be qualified for a certain appointment, as well as why they are seeking it. This may help inform PC members who are trying to make some kind of informed, fair and constructive decision when it comes to these appointments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just thought I?d share my thoughts on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to hearing from others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:22 AM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don?t know either Samuel or Karel well enough to judge, so I?ll express no preference while not dissenting.
>>>>>>