Re: (OPE-L) admissions procedure

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Mon May 17 2004 - 21:16:41 EDT

I am talking about you (single-) handled admissions before there was
an advisory committee. Which is relevant since the AC seems to be

>Re the list procedure re admissions:
>We don't make or discuss recommendations on the list in fairness to the
>people being recommended.  However, I can explain again the
>list procedure.
>The procedure begins when a list member makes a recommendation to
>a member of the AC or myself.  It is then shared with the other members.
>We then discuss the question.  In some cases, we agree that someone else
>on the list should be asked for an opinion.  Our discussions are speeded
>when we all know the person being recommended and especially when
>the member making a recommendation provides sufficient motivation,
>documentation and references for the proposed candidate.  If  any
>member wants to make a recommendation, then I strongly urge them
>to motivate the candidate as fully as possible and to at least provide
>us with an email address for that person.  I also strongly encourage
>them to read the criteria that we use when considering recommendations
>(explained in the report noted below)  and to speak to those criteria
>when making recommendations.
>Our discussions _can_ take time, especially if one of the 2-3 AC members
>or myself  is on vacation or attending a conference, etc.   A certain
>time lag is the price you pay when a ctte makes decisions by consensus.
>In the end, we make a decision on the basis of consensus.  We sometimes
>have disagreements (as is to be expected) but no one has ever officially
>"blocked" consensus to prevent someone from being admitted and
>no one ever threatened to resign if someone was either not invited _or_
>The criteria that we use in considering recommendations, and our entire
>admissions policy,  is spelled out in detail in a statement by the AC to
>the list sent on April 10, 2002 [OPE-L:6958]. Our admissions procedure
>is therefore quite transparent.
>When an invitation is made it can sometimes be months before someone
>gets back to us.  After all, the people being invited can also be away
>from their email for months at a time if they are on vacation or
>attending conferences, etc.  Sometimes people are invited and they never
>reply. It happens.
>All of this is time-consuming. The members of the AC, including past
>member Alfredo, deserve a lot of credit for the time and effort that
>they have devoted to this process. One should remember that all of this
>activity by the AC and myself is unpaid activity. I  think the list
>should be grateful for the administrative service(s) that we perform for
>the list.
>After someone makes a recommendation, whether we get back to the
>person making the recommendation is a matter of discretion.  We
>have no firm policy about that.  More often,  after a recommendation
>goes before the AC for consideration, the first the original person who
>made the recommendation hears about what happened is when
>s/he reads the welcoming message. Of course, there is nothing which
>prevents a list member who has made a recommendation from asking
>an AC member or myself _off-list_ for a status report.
>In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 18 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT