Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Comments below [MB].

Mary

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> While this is an interesting idea, I worry about yet more work for the
> Nomcom and its affect on the nomcom timeline.  And then there's the whole
> confidentiality model the Nomcom and CBs are currently tied to and how that
> would need to be morphed to enable this.

[MB] And the latter is my biggest concern.  I think this feedback model has
the potential to seriously compromise the Nomcom process. My interpretation
of the process as a past chair was that providing this feedback actually
violates the confidentiality of the Nomcom process.  I know it happens
unofficially, but I don't think that's ideal.
[/MB]

> And finally, there's the problem that the Nomcom is 10+ people who might
> not have direct knowledge of how the AD (or IAB or IAOC member) is doing -
> its difficult to come up with a coordinated and useful and agreed upon set
> of feedback with that many folk involved.  (This is substantially different
> than taking a vote for whether or not to send someone forward for
> confirmation).
>
> Several other possible approaches:
>
> 1) This isn't a nomcom problem, but a organization problem.  Once a year
> have the AD or IAB member sit down with the IETF chair or IAB chair and get
> feedback on the chair's perception.
>
> 2) Have the nomcom do a straw poll:  For AD or IAB member X, given what
> you know currently would you continue them in office if they were up for
> reappointment.  What's reported is for/against/abstentions.
>
> 3) Have the IETF as a whole do a straw poll (same question as above) but
> allow individuals to provide anonymous feedback through a tool.
>
> 4) During the area meetings during the face to face meeting specifically
> ask the questions:  How am I doing? How can I do things better?  What's
> broken with the area?  What's working with the area?  Point to (3) as a way
> of providing more detailed feedback.
>
[MB] I agree with the above.  It gets down to some basic people management
procedures.  There are all sorts of tools, surveys, etc that one can do to
get feedback - e.g., 4 way feedback forms.  I would posit that this will
provide a more objective set of input than what Nomcom receives since it
can be done totally anonymously.  I would hate to put the Nomcom in the
position of having to filter what information might be appropriate (or not)
to share.  I think it would be way too easy to leak information that could
reveal the identity of who provided the input. I don't think the average
Nomcom member has the experience to necessarily do that well.  And, I think
getting that feedback every 2 years is way too infrequent to be very
effective.[/MB]

>
>
> So - not a big fan of involving the Nomcom until other venues have been
> tried and have failed.
>
[MB] I totally agree. [/MB]

>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> At 10:09 AM 3/26/2015, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> >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:[e-mail]] 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
>
>
>