[NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC
avri doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Apr 7 07:32:46 EEST 2017
Hi,
I might add that I see no problem with continuing for a while with just
2 members in the SSC. That is one of the advantages of the SSC
requiring full consensus.
But I do recommend you do not try to design new processes until you
really know why the previous, relatively simple and straightforward
process failed.
avri
On 06-Apr-17 23:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First, I want to thank Matt for the work he has done and I am really
> confused that he had to resign in such way. I m really thankful that
> as vice-chair took the lead to handling the SSC selection.
>
> With regard to SSC, I kept myself away from the discussion since I
> recused myself. However, I do feel guilty that the burden for process
> setting and selection was put on other members and Matt as vice-chair.
>
> I cannot accept to be appointed to SSC due to the circumstances and I
> am more than keen to withdraw my candidature and restart the process
> based on the comments.
> I think this is an opportunity to work on a solid process and
> procedure to handle appointments. The PC has several additional items
> to work on including the ongoing public comments, request for inputs
> received by some working groups and vice chairs appointments.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-04-07 4:54 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>
> This is not a case of washing dirty laundry in my view. It is of
> resolving how we fix what was clearly a breakdown in process. I
> am concerned that we learn from this experience, set in place
> better procedures, and establish trust again. If I thought simply
> accepting Ed's withdrawal from the process and simply naming Rafik
> would effectuate a change in our collective behaviour, I would
> certainly opt for that, because like everyone else, I have a
> rather full agenda at the moment and this has taken an inordinate
> amount of time. However, as Ayden has indicated, I think it leaves
> Rafik as a lame duck in the position. And as Matthew indicated in
> his post this morning:
>
> Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week,
> the legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned,
> the effort undermined and my integrity and the integrity of
> those I have worked with in this process has been denigrated.
> The backtalk, rumors, unpleasant lobbying and influencing,
> etc., go far beyond what is acceptable and reinforce the
> difficulties that I and my colleagues are operating under.
>
> As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can
> I recommend that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC
> member. I do not believe the process should go forward as
> is; it should be restarted with much clearer parameters and
> procedural rules and policies.
>
> You recused yourself from this process Tapani, you have not been
> subject to the chaos that ensued. I think it is inappropriate for
> you to accuse me of "washing dirty laundry", when all I am trying
> to do is respond to what I think are thoughtful concerns raised by
> some of the unfortunate few who have had to live through this
> experience. Perhaps we should just wait for a week or two until
> things calm down a bit to investigate how we can select our third
> member of the committee.
>
> Kind regards, Stephanie
>
> On 2017-04-06 15:10, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Ayden and Stephanie,
>>
>> I take it you two are objecting to appointing Rafik without washing
>> the dirty laundry in public first.
>>
>> As I indicated I don't see the need or use of that - not all hasty
>> words need to be avenged, victories don't need to include shaming
>> losers, not everything needs to be said out loud. And the real issue
>> at hand is not really all that big: sky would not fall regardless of
>> who we appoint to the SSC. But if we don't have a consensus then we
>> don't.
>>
>> So, unless I've misunderstood you, I guess we'll have to start the
>> process over.
>>
>> Perhaps we should first elect a new Vice Chair to take care of it.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:49:43AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>) wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Ayden that this mess needs to be resolved; he has stated the
>>> issues well.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-04-06 06:17, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>>> I do not have an objection to Rafik serving on the SSC, just as I did
>>>> not have an objection to Ed serving. I had not assessed either candidate
>>>> and was reserving judgement until our scheduled call for this evening,
>>>> when I was going to compare CVs against the publicly-developed scoring
>>>> rubric. However, if I am interpreting correctly the previous emails
>>>> which have been sent to this list today, some of us have just been
>>>> accused of being biased and partial towards a certain candidate, and
>>>> “this whole process is a mess and should be started over with clear
>>>> requirements and standards approved by the PC.” Then an hour later, we
>>>> should abandon process altogether, “There is an old tradition in my
>>>> culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed
>>>> man.” So which is it? Should we be starting over, putting out a new call
>>>> for candidates with a clearly defined process for how applications will
>>>> be evaluated — or is there actually a tacit acknowledgement that the
>>>> process we were following was appropriate, but there was a fear the
>>>> ‘wrong’ person was going to be chosen? I hate to dwell on this, as I’d
>>>> like us to move on as well, but I think this is important. If Rafik is
>>>> appointed because Ed has withdrawn, I do not want his appointment to be
>>>> seen by any as illegitimate.
>>>>
>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC
>>>>> Local Time: 6 April 2017 11:02 AM
>>>>> UTC Time: 6 April 2017 10:02
>>>>> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing
>>>>> candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place,
>>>>> it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> So let's do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would
>>>>> suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and
>>>>> if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the
>>>>> process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things
>>>>> have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to
>>>>> develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future
>>>>> more gracefully.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tapani
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing
> list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list