IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 4909F1A87D9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 ZdJPGoPdUzj8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53F231A1B62 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48D25DA008C; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:30:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:1231:998:a859:76be:fa:3859] (31.130.238.171) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:30:02 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH48FtGLs4qkcjPWz3hVm==n=7xGfhD2eDZ0xBEzgreLFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:29:59 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <B32D3E10-4552-44B8-90B7-375BEF1FE672@nominum.com>
References: <5513FE6B.7090405@dcrocker.net> <20150326143207.GL6734@mx1.yitter.info> <CAKKJt-dgtH8suvgeUEJhCR1E2YCH+snPb6SZJ1C_tQzMTy3f9A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbuEH48FtGLs4qkcjPWz3hVm==n=7xGfhD2eDZ0xBEzgreLFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [31.130.238.171]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/83nP98WbO01-BjifjDHTfcFf74U>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <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: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:30:03 -0000

On Mar 26, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll follow the discussion to see ideas for anonymous feedback as well.  The hard part is that anonymous feedback will most likely be constructive and positive feedback will likely go directly to the person.  What ever anonymous process is used will likely just get one side of the story, so reviews of this may require 360 reviews if there appears to be an issue.

Actually this cuts both ways.   If all the AD hears is positive feedback, and the positive feedback is about things that some people appreciate and some people don't, the people who are bothered by the AD's behavior are likely to experience more of it rather than less, which is unfortunate.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email