On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Joseph Manthi <jmanthi@gmail.com> wrote:
Washington: The appointment of a DG, as I said, is political. This we have to live with. Instead of Shem giving the guy a chance to fail, he automatically starts complaining about what criteria was used to appoint him after failing to be considered. What does that tell you about Shem?
He did not whine about having failed to be considered. I'd still like to stand by the summary I gave of how I understood him.
All I am saying is that anyone in his right mind would not hire someone who has been accused of gross mismanagement of a very high profile parastatal.
Accused. That's the point. He's not convicted as yet, though in your mind you've done just that - convicted him!
And therefore complaining of the DG's appointment using such flimsy reasons as that he is not an "informatician" - whatever that means - lends itself to questions about impropriety.
"informatician" - I did not look it up from any dictionary, but the way I saw it, anyone on this list would easily know what he meant from the context. How comes you don't? Anway, I personally do agree with his "flimsy" reasons, since I'd have loved to see someone with the "relevant industry" qualifications (as opposed to "relevant political" qualifications) being appointed to such a position. Political considerations for appointments should have been shelved looong time. IIRC, there was strong proposition sometimes back for such appointments to be vetted by parliament. How this became a cropper is so clear in my mind, but is OT for this list so I will not delve into it.
The DG is a manager, he is not a technician. Now if he was appointed to discuss original thoughts about technical issues then we would have a problem.
You miss the point once again! The manager, without having clear and better understanding of what the "technician" is talking about, will always swing towards the whims of his/her political masters, the technicians best-interests notwithstanding. I'd hate to try to make an economist officiate on ICT-related issues which have no bias towards economics (and that would be shallow anyway). If you were appointed to be the CEO of a Kenyatta national Hospital and you aren't a doctor by profession, guess where the hospital would be headed? In summary, Dr. Ochuodho strong proposition was to have industry-related qualifications considered for such appointments, not political.
In every country I know Spectrum allocation is an economic issue and not a technical one.
A very simple case that I know of: Sometimes back, FM stations in Nairobi were ordered by CCK to have their transmitters moved from where they were installed initially to Limuru, because there were so much frequency interference. Some stations even jammed their competitors. I don't want to indulge further into this, but I think the initial decision to let the transmitters be installed was approved by the "manager".
In this case the DG - if that is the criteria under contention - is more qualified in my book than Shem.
What Dr. Shem (let me be fair to his rightly earned titles as well) inferred was simply "to have doctors run hospitals". I did not see (or maybe I was selective in my reading) anywhere where he cast aspersions on the person of the DG.
Further there is no cloud hunging over his head.
I maintain that such cloud is none of our business in this forum. Why don't you stay focused on the issues relevant to the subject, than getting personal? -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards!" --from a /. post