On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:38 PM Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think the section on Nomcom feedback is broken, in that it in many respects > makes the LLC board members immune from feedback to the NomCom from some of > the individuals (staff, contractors, RPC) that have closest contact with the > LLC board members, and can most directly be affected by LLC Board misbehaviour. > > Having myself been affected in this way by bad behaviour from the board as > a contractor in the handling of the Tools Maintenance RFP a year ago, I find > it interesting that the LLC Board now proposes that I should be prevented from > giving feedback to the NomCom about board and member behaviour. > > The proposal mentions possible retaliation from staff or contractors against > LLC Board members, but not possible retaliation against staff or contractors > from LLC Board members. This is also seems skewed, and retaliation in the > other direction is unfortunately far more likely and easy to carry through if > there is no possibility of feedback to the NomCom. > > In any case, feedback to the NomCom about performance is a necessary check on > bad behaviour and unfitness for any position. I don't think any limitation > on feedback to the NomCom on the performance of NomCom-selected individuals is > appropriate. I agree. The NomCom should be free to receive information wherever and from whomever is willing to provide it; they should have whatever information is available, and be able to judge for themselves whether to give it credence or not. I also believe that "staff, Secretariat and RPC" and IANA and contractors should be encouraged to provide feedback on IESG candidates[0]. They have unique visibility into the character, competence, and demeanor of serving IESG members. The IETF and IESG wouldn't function without them, and we need a way to ensure that they are treated with the respect that they deserve. W [0]: Yup, I know that this is not the focus of this thread, but it is related... > > Henrik > > > On 2020-10-12 01:23, 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 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 > > * Direct to the IETF LLC Board (not including the IETF Executive Director) at llc-board-only@xxxxxxxx > > * To the 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 > > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
