In message <3.0.1.32.19990314163535.0069edcc&#167;iaccess.com.au>, Greg Crew writes:
> Has the sub-committee any suggestions as to how to conduct the search? My
> view is to use an industry search firm, or approach people suggested by WG
> members. I am not sure advertising will attract the right sorts of
> candidates.

The one promise that I had hoped to see honoured by the
working group was that of public accountability.  Friday's
meeting was a travesty and any result cannot be described
to the government as a concensus.

You post two proposals and ask for public comment, which
is evenly split.   A compromise position of two classes
of membership is suggested, which would have left noone
happy, but could have achieved grudging concensus, since
it offered a balance between the interests of supply and
demand.

A proposal for three classes of membership is put
forward hours before the meeting by Peter Gerrand, the
one working group member with the largest possible
conflict of interest.  The proposal has never seen
the glare of public attention.  But it is tabled anyway,
and we now have three options:

* Single class of membership
* Two classes, for supply and demand
* Three classes, for supply, demand, and associations.

The most popular option is the first, but the voting
was done in two stages to ensure that it did not get
through.  Strenuous objections from Leni Mayo and
myself were simply ignored, and the stacked voting
was bulldozed through.

First a vote was taken on whether there should be one
class, or multiple classes.  This was split 5 to 8
(I believe), in favour of multiple classes.  A vote
was then taken between two and three classes, with a
narrow win to 3 classes.

So the most popular option goes down, because it would
have empowered users far too much for the liking of
Melbourne IT.

This proposal has now gone off to NOIE, and is purported
to be the outcome of public consultation and the will
of the working group.  Pathetic.  We had a chance of
achieving concensus, but now I can only hope that there
will be enough opposition to the scheme to see it go
down in flames once again.

But to top if off, you now wish to appoint a mate to the
position of CEO.  Are you lot for real?

The position needs to be publicly advertised.  I can't
believe you would suggest that we all recommend a few mates.
Set some objective requirements for the ideal candidate.
Advertise for it.  By all means use your favourite agency
to sift through the returns.  But at least pretend to be
open.

MM