IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 16:21 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 60C9A1A014E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:21:50 -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 yRBe0JirFJs9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:21:49 -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 DD65D1A024E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (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 C2CF7DA014E; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:1231:998:a859:76be:fa:3859] (31.130.238.171) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:21:42 -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: <20150326143207.GL6734@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:21:39 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <3399C445-9D66-46AE-ABB5-1B5BDE7A7A4A@nominum.com>
References: <5513FE6B.7090405@dcrocker.net> <20150326143207.GL6734@mx1.yitter.info>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [31.130.238.171]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ON3AqPPuERr50T5vxKohk3TKB2A>
Cc: 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 16:21:50 -0000

On Mar 26, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> Surely there's some other way to get the anonymous feedback to sitting
> people.  Maybe an anonymous remailer is all we need?  There's nothing
> for the nomcom to act on anyway if they get feedback about someone not
> sitting.

Some of the feedback that ADs get publicly is incredibly harsh; I'd be a little concerned about an unfiltered anonymous feedback path.   So I think there would have to be _some_ filtering mechanism, and a remailer probably wouldn't cut it.

But I do think Randy has a point about nomcom workload.   Maybe we need another committee... ;)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email