Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:31:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Thanks for your clarity. This does not, I would notice, say anything > > about non-candidates. > > What are you trying to accomplish here?
I wanted to hear from the candidates their views on the tasks they've performed, asking them to clearly and succinctly assess their past work, where it's been good and where it's been bad, and how that might relate to work as DPL. One candidate did that, essentially in the way I requested. The other five candidates simply ignored the question, perhaps hoping it would go away. Since the others elected to ignore the question (twice) I spent a fair bit of time doing my level best to gather what information I could. I could not take advantage of the much greater knowledge they would have themselves about the work they've done. I wish they had taken the question seriously and answered it, but they did not. My plan was simply to let each candidate answer the question as they saw fit, provided they took it seriously, and let their own assessment of their work stand on its own. For the one candidate who did take the question seriously, this is exactly what I did. So I did my level best to do what I could, having given them the most possible time to answer themselves. The results did not come out flattering my preferred candidates or unflattering to those I disliked. So while I freely admit they are defective because they did not have the advantage of the personal information the candidates could have brought if they had taken the question seriously, any defects are not manifestations of bias on my part. I intend to ask the same question next year, and proceed in the same way. If candidates felt that by ignoring my question they wouldn't need to explain their records in detail, they were incorrect. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
