Re: Confidentiality (was - Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal)

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Responses below [MB].

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 3/26/2015 9:41 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> ...
> >
>   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]
>
>
> I do not understand the nature of this confidentiality concern.
>
> If nomcom interviews disclose a pattern of statement that AD Brute is
> confrontational and intimidating in their interactions style, then
> having a chat with the AD, describing the pattern of perceptions and the
> need for a softer and more respectful and more collaborative style, does
> not violate anyone's confidentiality.
>
[MB] Because some of the information could inadvertently leak who provided
that feedback and there are cases where individuals might not want that to
happen.  For example, if the AD asked for an example of the situation where
the behavior was exhibited and the Nomcom member provided an example, that
could often result in the AD knowing exactly who provided that input.   In
cases where there might already be a strained working relationship, this
could make these worse.  If the community decides adding this feedback task
 is important, then I personally would limit my input to Nomcom so that
none of the details could clearly point to me in cases where I am concerned
with my working relationship with the individual. That would be a bad thing
for the Nomcom process in my experience, as these specific examples often
provide very valuable information to the Nomcom.  I personally think the
bad behaviors should be dealt with outside the nomcom process as I think
this gets down to basic people management.  Doing people management
indirectly via input provided by Nomcom isn't an effective model IMHO.  The
majority of the input to Nomcom is quite subjective and trying to identify
the exact behavior that needs to be corrected in cases where Nomcom gets
negative input is not at all straightforward.
[/MB]


>
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>