Henrik, Jay,
I agree with Henrik, but let me go a step further and generalize
his comments to recognize a broader and more significant
problem. It is an essential element of the Nomcom model that
the Nomcom should be able to receive input from anyone who
considers themselves a member of the community or affected by
its work. Indeed, it is entirely appropriate for the Nomcom to
actively solicit that information even including asking specific
people who might have useful information. We expect the Nomcom
to separate truth from innuendo, useful input from personal
vendettas, and, as the expression goes, the wheat from the chaff
in all of the input they receive. We also assume that the input
they receive and the basis on which they make their choices in
specific cases will be held confidential and kept that way
permanently. Without those assumptions and broad community
trust in them, the system simply does not work.
In that regard, I see little or nothing that distinguishes the
LLC Board and assorted staff or contractors from, e.g., ADs and
WG Chairs or, more generally, people who feel that they have
been treated especially well by either (or by appointees for
whom those bodies are (or should be) accountable. I note
especially "advocate for a board candidate who is expected to
provide favourable treatment" and what seems to me the analogy
to community participants, or even Nomcom members, who might be
inclined to advocate for or against particular technical
positions or even to favor particular proposals of companies
over anything. In all of those cases, the other side of the
coin that that people with inside views (or perceptions that an
individual or group has unfairly put their views at a
disadvantage) are precisely the ones with the information that
Nomcom needs to have.
All of that means we need to have very high expectations of the
abilities and fairness of the Nomcom as a group. But we do. No
one every claimed that they have an easy job. And, again, if we
can't trust them to do that job, it seems to me only a matter of
time before the whole system falls apart.
best,
john
g--On Monday, October 12, 2020 21:37 +0200 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.
>
>
> 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-consu
>> ltation/blob/master/DRAFT%20Community%20Engagement%20Policy.md
>> [2]
>> https://github.com/ietf-llc/community-engagement-policy-consu
>> ltation/issues
>>
>
should encourage receiving and even seek
--On Monday, October 12, 2020 21:37 +0200 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.
>
>
> 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-consu
>> ltation/blob/master/DRAFT%20Community%20Engagement%20Policy.md
>> [2]
>> https://github.com/ietf-llc/community-engagement-policy-consu
>> ltation/issues
>>
>
