[Public-Experts] Strawman evaluation sheet

[karklinsj at gmail.com]

Another approach would be to start with determination of the profile of advisers that we are looking for. After that to look if we can identify among nominated individuals somebody who fits the desired profile.

We should spend some time in LA discussing this question.

JK






Sent from Surface





From: Lawrence Strickling
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎October‎ ‎8‎, ‎2014 ‎1‎:‎46‎ ‎AM
To: Jeanette Hofmann, public-experts at icann.org





A related question is whether we as a group have views as to whether certain skills categories are more important than others.  For example, I am not sure I would rank highly the need to find independent experts on Internet technical operations as I believe the community will have plenty of people with expertise in that field who can participate in this process.  We might want to discuss in Los Angeles whether we, either individually or as a group, want to prioritize certain of the categories over others.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-experts-bounces at icann.org [mailto:public-experts-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 4:21 PM
To: public-experts at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Public-Experts] Strawman evaluation sheet

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
>
_______________________________________________
Public-Experts mailing list
Public-Experts at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/public-experts
_______________________________________________
Public-Experts mailing list
Public-Experts at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/public-experts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/public-experts/attachments/20141008/5a2e382d/attachment.html>