Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 3025848" data-attributes="member: 5">One or two "new blood" positions on the nominations committee would be a good idea; that is, one or two positions guarenteed to be filled by people who have never been on the nominations committee in previous years.  I think a lot of people who might not normally throw their hat into the ring would do so if there was an assurance that there would always be some new blood on the committee.Staff reviewers on the committee?  I've never been comfortable with that idea.  We hear from them all year long.  We know they all have some companies they don't care for and some who won't send them products.  It's just always felt like there was an inherent conflict, though I am sure it is unintentional and is not meant as an idictment of any particular individual or company.  Other staff members like Moderators, Admins, Newshounds, etc.?  That might or might not be a conflict depending on which position they hold and what interaction they have with publishers while wearing their staff hat.Now, I know some will say that a lot of the people that have those possible conflicts of interest are some of the most highly qualified people for the committee, and that's true in some respects, but there are reasons why people who work in other aspects of the industry aren't eligible, too.  Safer to avoid the appearance of potential conflict and just disallow the possibility of being on the nominations committee to anyone who works for the site, as much of a disappointment as that might be.  Let's face it, with a (supposed) membership of around 40,000 members and it being more vigorously opened to potential committee members from other sites I don't think it will seriously deplete the pool of talent available to sit on the committee.  It's all about avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest, despite anyone's best intentions, and knowing that with (probably) 50,000 + other people to choose from we'll do just fine.Obviously, the opinions in this post are such that those they effect (staff members, previous committe members like myself, etc.) will feel compelled to object and I can only say that I hope you understand the positions and can objectively accept them as valid opinions.  I'll post on some other ideas as I recall them from previous posts or new ones if they pop up.  Thanks for considering all of these suggestions, Dextra, and I'm sure you'll come up with a good, unbiased policy that has the long term growth and interest of the ENnies at heart.</blockquote>

Verification