IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 8913A1B2FA0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 LCDy5owN-EIb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B884E1B2F9F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1982; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427406752; x=1428616352; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=EzBVgsP9aRYJevFm23dBrOPYsrbdJWrVT9ylbgRhMzE=; b=Sj343dLdBLL2Zx+7Xw5hsjs7jojzYPu8/KJ+0M9gZ+kYjBZDEh7PhRKz Ea7Yz5bv+HE6p4XAVPS5GDkfKXSFIyN8oBCFuTB+V7yKDzU01DuXtM4CX 3eZtOmFhyNJkG3fZ+27ust4QUJhDbES7zAIkTeN/J/LK84hkl+votYlJm g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 487
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BRBQCqaeJU/40NJK1bgwaBLATILQKBGEMBAQEBAQF8hAwBAQEDAX4LAgEIGC4yJQIEEw6IFwjONQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEZiwyEdIMWgRQFjziBWoEuhi+TDSKDbm+BRH8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,475,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="406733211"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2015 21:52:32 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2QLqVKX032166 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:52:32 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.149]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:52:31 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal
Thread-Topic: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal
Thread-Index: AQHQZ8I9o5R5TbYu4E+Jt9YpQAha8p0vIUmAgAB8xYCAAASOgA==
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:52:31 +0000
Message-ID: <46594AEF-506E-4DF9-A2A7-18C48996A265@cisco.com>
References: <5513FE6B.7090405@dcrocker.net> <00d101d067ce$80f30b00$82d92100$@olddog.co.uk> <49539FB1-6436-42BF-8A42-C63E8503114C@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <49539FB1-6436-42BF-8A42-C63E8503114C@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.89.12.130]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_627678B2-CCEB-4EA4-88D3-78EE2DF6319B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2iVhm1Xkwt_10VxPwElzyJ-YwaI>
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: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:52:34 -0000

> On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> Getting this feedback through any channel, anonymized or otherwise, would be brilliant.
> 
> It seems to me that the most straightforward way to handle that would be to give the feedback on an incumbent to the incumbent. The way to handle confidentiality, I would expect, is to ask the person commenting for one of three instructions:
> 
> 1) do not give this feedback to the incumbent
> 2) give this feedback to the incumbent in an anonymized form
> 3) give this feedback to the incumbent
> 
> And note that only (3) gives the incumbent the opportunity to discuss the feedback with the person that gave it. There is a part of me that wants to not offer (3), but I can imagine it might make some people comfortable sharing that would not otherwise be.

mumble. correction. "not to offer (1)".

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email