RE: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 26 March 2015 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 17A191A0070 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 vrfMAXs2mSZj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5059F1A0406 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t2QE9han026871; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:09:43 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b383.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.179.131]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t2QE9dBO026794 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:09:40 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, 'IETF Discussion' <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <5513FE6B.7090405@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <5513FE6B.7090405@dcrocker.net>
Subject: RE: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:09:37 -0000
Message-ID: <00d101d067ce$80f30b00$82d92100$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGFvH+ZGY7oA3c4GI+LNtKa0+nLuJ3EIT2Q
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21426.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.281-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--11.281-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: u7Yf2n7Ca/0lhPVVepSP20KcYi5Qw/RVNr21mij50NtKb99LaADG+iK+ 7hWLK8rqMU797qBXQJzp/QvZo+fnVjL3OBQt7DBm2x/FmlC/aoy3dp6DuD+6wC62hjZS0WoYcvn zF4yeWMYAji1Ykw5wB1UvsgNTJZ0uEjxiZsrkbCMaunX20lzOhSHAogh2SU5XWltirZ/iPP4/sJ JrvRfE1DO99Cq5T73k1xhkBzna7Uu9iYLcgfMdyGfdZe9D9J+YGJhXJ22MVkmBJDg+1RHZRHpJR uNlLC7SadFI4+wFF8XbpuLIddUnr4WCb97sh/9g9UVHiwLx0/J9LQinZ4QefNQdB5NUNSsi1GcR AJRT6POOhzOa6g8Krb1RtxuLtyaQda5IUMSWntY72yaxpYJToNM+MOh0Y2UCgwtT8n7b+oM=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZYqt42-QnRiCzae4zFPUKFrSQNc>
Cc: 'Michael Richardson' <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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 14:09:57 -0000

Way back when I was on the IESG I was always asking NomCom for feedback (especially negative issues, but in a constructive way).

I think it is crucial for ADs to know what issues they are causing and what they are doing well.

Getting this feedback through any channel, anonymized or otherwise, would be brilliant.

Of course, the ideal is that the feedback is delivered promptly and direct, but that requires a certain amount of resilience on the part of back-feeder. It also does not benefit from aggregation. So feedback from NomCom or another "progress review" body would be very helpful.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Sent: 26 March 2015 12:41
> To: IETF Discussion
> Cc: Michael Richardson
> Subject: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal
> 
> 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