IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confidentiality (was - Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 01 April 2015 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B44E1A887D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q6HPY4nK6XWL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A554A1A8881 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdea3 with SMTP id a3so12273045pde.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EGwvuwI/mc81gh7quw7IJXVVmdXJQspXW9cLH4MaUKI=; b=nxM6WkCNI4vvXpQVYTxP94qHuiFLALYKN/anLABzi3qAVibDrnhT3rkVpMBnKRTgOa TvvskJqEOP3kjMsqhypicz5uHeYKfe8fMBphkgpTAlvw/EfoMSqY3BNc56wokgV2YzYQ +4f/PcjILxF+jFllO7iG/jevDtZ3FaUTH3cmcj4HWevnucZSXu27YgZ8g20ijSKAyg9V EkyQpNqV6m1WZiu95ltGnvl13qJ2cqg1v+J1GgGPclir9wanXv/5ShpfSXLVNS7AOSfB ZSIJGc04iA5Ms15USJtgu5m2rF5d0GunUcK9S5S76O1z/01JtYvbTBzPrPrFAnClnztM lIBA==
X-Received: by 10.66.172.4 with SMTP id ay4mr39244402pac.157.1427914511349; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:77ed:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:77ed:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ji6sm2870063pac.30.2015.04.01.11.55.07 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <551C3F07.9070802@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 07:55:03 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>, Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: Confidentiality (was - Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal)
References: <5513FE6B.7090405@dcrocker.net> <00d101d067ce$80f30b00$82d92100$@olddog.co.uk> <20150326142810.DDCC61A014B@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABmDk8=A8hMrr_K9S98UPkpFGX80xdRkdPrriiirT=_wFAe0og@mail.gmail.com> <55142B2A.2080301@dcrocker.net> <CABmDk8nh=NL7Js-b3k_4hC1fRDt-Gp+7YFF8tRWAZEXKcQxw3w@mail.gmail.com> <D1416FD8.FE897%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1416FD8.FE897%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-hteyV6bN3qfv0rlEzGAeB1ctuU>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:55:13 -0000

On 02/04/2015 03:05, Livingood, Jason wrote:
...
> 3 – Annually, send out a longer 360-review kind of form to WG chairs/ADs/etc. that is a bit more in-depth.

When I first worked for IBM, they still operated a 360 review, where
everybody got to see anonymized comments from a few colleagues, the
boss, and underlings. I found it very helpful. Also, when writing
comments on others, you *know* that they will be passed on, so there
is a strong incentive to be polite and objective and to write in a style
that is not easily identifiable.

I never understood why IBM dropped the scheme, but I always suspected
that some of the senior bosses didn't appreciate knowing what underlings
really thought. That is of course the best reason for doing such reviews.

We're smart enough to make a 360 review process almost completely
automated and genuinely anonymous.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email