Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 07/04/2016 17:37, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/7/2016 9:30 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>> On 7 Apr 2016, at 16:07, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>   And I'll suggest that this is not an issue that one should try to 
>>> 'game', such as by trying to obscure the choice by floating various 
>>> venue possibilities or otherwise hoping that we haven't signaled the 
>>> choice to a specific city/hotel.
>>
>> Such a process served us well in getting feedback on members of the 
>> I* until recently.
>>
>> I would have thought that it would pick up problems of the type that 
>> was identified last night without compromising our commercial 
>> position too badly.
>
>
> Stewart,  if you are referring to the gaming that used to be done, 
> when soliciting information about nomcom candidates, by padding the 
> list of names with various non-candidates, in my experience on several 
> nomcoms, no it did not work well at all.
>
> d/
>
>

Of course one's mileage may vary. Whilst I prefer the new system, my 
recollection from the two Nomcoms I served on was that the padded 
systems worked well enough.

The padding is somewhat different in this case because the padding may 
actually be not fully researched candidates and the input may mean that 
you avoid additional work reviewing a city that would otherwise be 
dropped at a later stage.

Stewart