Re: followup to my time-management question
Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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.