Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD5F12D56E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 RGaVhP2a8zn5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x241.google.com (mail-wm0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 995F812D5C2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x241.google.com with SMTP id n3so23570415wmn.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tAN5nunqxjra2ZKJdBpRnyB7VVHlsLbBarbqWcrgD64=; b=NgwE07Beds8NThO0hYV7BcnLepvO3bMf3CXXlpEZ2H3SGvqT5xu0jPL+59OlwnGfQ3 quYFAECjUOdrq1cd0gjjhRz2CIPk/oMj2aNl7xrm7ZvsMbld0XVdz8S+QXL0v6Th+yXT C2Qe957F8au/PECvKd+lBGP3Q6OyDhY3AiSpNs7uXKu0Wn+3aCysSX3Ziywi1LCOtbi5 HM/iuXMLrXpLD+GUjNuqDx42maStB2lBuhtlbf7yk5dAxOjk1nyXUnmBMh1V9zPy1M03 HUP3w7oERqORJLVVNRlKF5SBmr71e5Hy/R3IBmVDM1RAwviyLNIjTAwIdDIBch2NmFXm CojA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tAN5nunqxjra2ZKJdBpRnyB7VVHlsLbBarbqWcrgD64=; b=A0A74ri+Kb+7GIx0IVv11QaKRQR/J6Lyy/bo2jtam5mtQuT2xyE0TtMt0j5a7aFGMW ew435wPvZ8IrTk0VXHknTjHko8xQilxr+jgjzTc4IwkzGng8GEYO96BCfYuNgApVFrvZ RBL53d9JgrR+ersq+1tbuNMpxvZYGbWxqy7MiIt05xL3gvWkpzsgednfz6NJfPcZmWrQ Q6WejyBNCoFAhP/2XIpR2YwjjyHUT5d1SFu2tbXuk+cs0E4BeUopESs2eJmnIAxYVSA9 WSq5eyr23T957lJ2mnfhDkTmK5oZwfP9uGF5q3GuQ9u11Z+bBdEhjn+snavoFjlRq0yU 0/hQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKbkZ0gMODiHUSIBIWa++ECPUMWxUf0ooIE9S0qEUDA2nW6L67ylTbyywa936aR/w==
X-Received: by 10.194.158.226 with SMTP id wx2mr4953927wjb.91.1460053864202; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 188sm10198303wmk.6.2016.04.07.11.31.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$@olddog.co.uk> <5705C39E.30807@dcrocker.net> <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$@olddog.co.uk> <570677BC.9000900@dcrocker.net> <203EFD6F-183D-4C92-9006-3BFE24BB525B@gmail.com> <57068CE5.1040709@dcrocker.net>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5706A765.4090408@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:31:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57068CE5.1040709@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/m-wZAXoJ4D9pLaT8iY2WjoeiN2Q>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 07 Apr 2016 18:31:10 -0000


On 07/04/2016 17:37, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/7/2016 9:30 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>> On 7 Apr 2016, at 16:07, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>; wrote:
>>>   And I'll suggest that this is not an issue that one should try to 
>>> 'game', such as by trying to obscure the choice by floating various 
>>> venue possibilities or otherwise hoping that we haven't signaled the 
>>> choice to a specific city/hotel.
>>
>> Such a process served us well in getting feedback on members of the 
>> I* until recently.
>>
>> I would have thought that it would pick up problems of the type that 
>> was identified last night without compromising our commercial 
>> position too badly.
>
>
> Stewart,  if you are referring to the gaming that used to be done, 
> when soliciting information about nomcom candidates, by padding the 
> list of names with various non-candidates, in my experience on several 
> nomcoms, no it did not work well at all.
>
> d/
>
>

Of course one's mileage may vary. Whilst I prefer the new system, my 
recollection from the two Nomcoms I served on was that the padded 
systems worked well enough.

The padding is somewhat different in this case because the padding may 
actually be not fully researched candidates and the input may mean that 
you avoid additional work reviewing a city that would otherwise be 
dropped at a later stage.

Stewart