Hi, Jay,
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 8:22 PM Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Added as Issue #1 "Policy on feedback to the NomCom is too restrictive" at https://github.com/ietf-llc/community-engagement-policy-consultation/issues/1
> On 12/10/2020, at 1:07 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
Joel has been a Nomcom chair. I've never been a voting member, but I served on the IAB from 2010-2013, on the IESG from 2013-2019, and as IAB liaison to Nomcom in 2010-2011, so wanted to provide a slightly different perspective (that ends up in the same place).
I understand that you're solving a slightly different problem for the LLC, but hope this is helpful.
If I wanted to keep my feedback to Nomcom about a fellow IAB member or IESG member confidential, routing it through a fellow IAB or IESG member is involving someone who has to work with me, and with the person I'm providing feedback on, is involving someone who doesn't have to be part of the chain.
If I wanted to keep my feedback to the Nomcom anonymous, the current process allows that (I send it to the Nomcom chair, who decides how to anonymize it). I'm not sure how that would work if I had to route it through a liaison. I've never provided anonymous feedback to the Nomcom, but I've never needed to.
The IETF Nomcom is really strange, compared to the ways many other groups choose their leadership, relying strongly on confidentiality, the desire of Nomcom members to do the right thing, and the willingness of the community to trust the Nomcom to do the right thing, whatever that turns out to be. It's really jarring, what the Nomcom can do, if they think it's the right thing to do ("change position descriptions if they think the ones they were provided aren't workable", isn't what executive recruiters usually do).
It seems helpful to allow anyone who thinks their feedback is important to the Nomcom to provide that feedback, confidentially in all cases and anonymously if that's required, and trust the Nomcom to figure out what the right thing to do is, based on the feedback that they're getting.
Best,
Spencer
