Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 26 March 2015 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 67D261B2CE6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 05:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 ddwERhGEZIfA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 05:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C7001B2CE1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 05:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.4.18] (rrcs-71-41-251-196.sw.biz.rr.com [71.41.251.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t2QCfM1K020736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 05:41:26 -0700
Message-ID: <5513FE6B.7090405@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:41:15 -0500
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 05:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1r2T4gXSnYnkY_Tvdcfv_piu-ac>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:41:28 -0000

Howdy,

During yesterday's plenary, this year's Nomcom chair, Michael
Richardson, made a comment that I responded to at the mic.  I'd like to
see whether there is interest in pursuing it:

Michael noted that the two-year cycle for appointees means that those
/not/ up for renewal go at least 18 months without feedback.  He put
forward the need for feedback to them sooner than that, but asserted
that having Nomcom do it would not be appropriate.

As a natural consequence of its interviewing process, Nomcoms always get
quite a bit of information about /all/ appointees, not just the ones
currently up for renewal.  No one else acquires this kind of information
regularly and reliably.

Of the 4 nomcoms I've been on, at least two acted on this feedback,
having a directed conversation with at least one such appointee each time.

So I suggest that providing explicit feedback to all appointees not up
for renewal become a regular part of nomcom's deliverables.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net