First, thanks Jay for engaging so promptly.
No, I do not think the liaison from the LLC Board is the right way for
the kind of feedback I am concerned about to be delivered to the nomcom.
Two reasons for this.
1) If the interaction is with the RPC, it is unlikley that the LLC Board
liaison will even know about the issues. Even if the interaction is
with you, I would be unsurprised if you had been discreet enough not to
raise the issues with the LLC board unless the problem was actually
interfering with your work. But that does not mean that it is not
useful information for the nomcom.
1') Even worse would be the case where the person with interaction
difficulties was a sitting LLC Board member. The liaison would find it
almost impossible to relay the issues. (Yes, there is a problem that
the issue will come to the attention of the LLC Board Liaison. That is
a different topic. I believe folks are aware that that can serve as a
damper on feedback about sitting IAB or IESG members. That is a topic
for a different list. And a very messy topic for which I do not know
any remedies.)
2) One of the complications I have observed for the nomcom in various
circumstances is that it is very hard to act on or even evaluate second
hand information. Too much gets lost, and there is too much inherent
uncertainty about the underlying details.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/11/2020 7:58 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
On 12/10/2020, at 12:49 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I keep re-reading the discussion of interaction with the nomcom. On
one level, avoidance of "backstabbing" makes sense.
And then I think about interesting cases that the nomcom needs to know
about. Creating an example that is to the best of my knowledge
completely fictitious, if a candidate for IETF Chair had a history of
difficult interactions with either the RPC or the IETF Executive
Director, it would seem that the nomcom should know about that. And
be able to get the information from the direct participants. This
policy would prohibit such direct communication.
(Yes, the nomcom might pick that person anyway. The reasons for
choices are manifold and complex. I am concerned merely that the
nomcom be able to get relevant information.)
The NomCom has a formal liaison from the LLC Board, which I think would
be the appropriate mechanism for this. Do you agree and if so do I need
to make the clear?
thanks again
Jay
Yours,
Joel
On 10/11/2020 7:23 PM, IETF Executive Director wrote:
The IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) has drafted a proposed IETF
LLC Community Engagement Policy [1] that sets out how IETF LLC board,
staff and contractors will engage with the IETF community, including
* what involvement board, staff and contractors may have in the the
development of RFCs;
* what engagement they may have with the NomCom;
* How the IETF LLC seeks community feedback;
* What mechanisms the IETF LLC uses for community engagement.
The policy proposes a new mailing list ietf-admin@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:ietf-admin@xxxxxxxx> for the discussion of IETF LLC related
matters.
The IETF LLC now seeks community feedback on this proposed policy.
Please provide feedback by 26 October 2020 00:00 UTC using any of
the following methods:
* Raising an issue on the Github repository [2]
* Direct to the IETF Executive Director at exec-director@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:exec-director@xxxxxxxx>
* Direct to the IETF LLC Board (not including the IETF Executive
Director) at llc-board-only@xxxxxxxx <mailto:llc-board-only@xxxxxxxx>
* To the ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx> list
[1]
https://github.com/ietf-llc/community-engagement-policy-consultation/blob/master/DRAFT%20Community%20Engagement%20Policy.md
[2]
https://github.com/ietf-llc/community-engagement-policy-consultation/issues
--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@xxxxxxxx <mailto:jay@xxxxxxxx>
