Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Dave,

I think this is an interesting idea.

I think there are two questions here:

1) Should we start doing regular (yearly?) performance evaluations of our leadership (IAB, IAOC, IESG).  Doing this on a regular basis would be good, give people constructive feedback, and would allow people to improve based on the feedback.  As opposed to doing the job for two years and being renewed or not by the NomCom.

2) Who should do this?  The NomCom, the chairs of each group, some other group?  It is a lot of work to do it well, and as many people have noted, the NomCom is already very busy.

Bob


> On Mar 26, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
>