Re: 360

[Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 3:15 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Don't forget the cover sheet on your TPS report, and everything will be fine.

Yeah, but no.

I must admit that the "360" part of the name *is* somewhat corpspeakbuzzwordy, but in spite of that I actually like this idea. If fairly regularly ask my chairs for feedback on what I can do better, etc - but:

1: I'm absolutely stinking perfect and there is nothing I can possibly do to improve or

2: chairs are actually humans[0], and don't want to seem "mean", and so they say I'm awesome even though I'm not

or 

3: they fear retribution.

I'm *fairly* sure it isn't 3, and I'm quite sure it isn't 1, and so I think that having some sort of large, anonymous feedback thingie where chairs and authors and shepherds and similar can provide feedback is actually helpful for me to understand what I can do to be better...

W

[0]: I know, who wouldathunk, right? 

On 9/9/22 23:05, Lloyd W wrote:

it's best to think of an AD, or indeed any contributor to the IETF, as an unpaid employee, with all the binding and responsibility that comes with being an employee.

per RFC8712, IETF LLC is a subsidiary of ISOC LLC, and 360 degree reviews of employees are considered best US corporate practice, so it seems clear why the IETF has adopted them.

Think of it as a corporate risk assessment strategy. Our people are our greatest assets, and ADs are people too.

Assets must be controlled.

Lloyd Wood

lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk

On 10 Sep 2022, at 01:38, Leif Johansson <leifj@sunet.se> wrote:

I just got a bunch of these 360 reviews of various ADs in my inbox.

Setting aside the question of the type of questions asked and the somewhat strange (at least to me) notion that ADs and other volunteers are treated as employees to be reviewed by other people in the community I'm very curious to learn where this practice was discussed.

I admit not paying enoug attention to the IETF process development effort these days (which seems to take up as much volume as the development of standards) so am sure I must have missed a very interesting thread somewhere...

Just point me to the relevant list archives and I'll be very happy.

Cheers Leif