IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 21:38 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 2D3591B2F5E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:38:27 -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 DqfmJ-z28rb5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF51D1B2F5B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1828; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427405906; x=1428615506; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=A1JkSJJpZn4qPT9mGL1H064NCIFXW7UaZKpZAkRCEKE=; b=IC8qnM3W8DhzydUnrpt4SV/JR0+SGZqGwVyJyw36alVdxAmJlOOp7SeM 5tUtkJoTZUq3/gMMFZvLCVFsfHjARGUlAbh+SwpqiP2pYvYPnvvxlRtpo jWl07km+CdaJc796z1s9MteDRCrSkYVUGozMPZ5NGc8q3c8gwH58LM6Qr U=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 487
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AKBQAjexRV/5RdJa1cgwaBLATLIgKBUUwBAQEBAQF9hBQBAQEDAX4LAgEIGC4yJQIEEw6IGQjMJwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEZiyiEf4MXgRYFkFCBaYEyhlSULSKDbm+BRH8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,475,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="403878182"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2015 21:38:25 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2QLcP7T000788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:38:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.149]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:38:24 -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+Jt9YpQAha8p0vIUmAgAB8xYA=
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:38:24 +0000
Message-ID: <49539FB1-6436-42BF-8A42-C63E8503114C@cisco.com>
References: <5513FE6B.7090405@dcrocker.net> <00d101d067ce$80f30b00$82d92100$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <00d101d067ce$80f30b00$82d92100$@olddog.co.uk>
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=_FCE04B14-3A54-44E6-B176-141AD13A149D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ErYOM5X-Npmki9zHkmXc-rGfRd8>
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 21:38:27 -0000

> 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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email