[Public-Experts] Strawman evaluation sheet

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Brian, thank you for the draft evaluation sheet.

The problem I see with the current design is that the scale from 1 to 5 
seems to imply a range in terms of more or less qualified. However, the 
current criteria look rather binary to me: one either has skills in the 
area of Operational Finance and Process or one doesn't.

A simple scoring of candidates would probably only work among candidates 
with similar skills. For example we could compare our scoring of 
candidates with skills in the area of Internet technical operations. I 
don't see how we can do a scoring across competence areas.

The lowest scoring should be a neutral zero. The zero would eliminate 
all candidates from scoring for a specific criteria or area of 
competence that are not qualified in this area. The scale of 1 to 5 
would only apply to candidates who indicate skills in a given area.

In order to assess skills and practical experiences wrt to the various 
areas and evalulate them along a scale we would need detailed CVs of all 
candidates.

The next step after the LA meeting should be to check whether our 
present list of candidates cover all substantial skills/competences 
(transparency, best practice and a few others I would regard as 
non-substantial) or if we need to reach out to identify additional 
candidates.

Jeanette



Am 07.10.14 21:52, schrieb Brian Cute:
> All,
>
> Attached as promised on our last call is a proposed evaluation sheet for
> Advisor candidates.  I tracked language from the process to date and
> note that this may be modified depending on Community feedback in Los
> Angeles.  Please add any suggested edits.  We will need to agree on the
> scoring methodology and I will offer some suggestions on that point for
> us to discuss.
>
> Best,
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public-Experts mailing list
> Public-Experts at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/public-experts
>