John, In previous years, the questionnaire response finished with a section as follows: ============================================================= NOT FOR CONFIRMING BODY The answer to the following question will not be shared with the confirming body (the IAB). This section may include personal identifying information. 8. Additional Information - For NomCom Only Is there any information you wish to share with the Nominating Committee that you do not wish to have shared with the IAB? This may include additional details about employment or work time issues. It may include opinions or comments about individuals on the various bodies involved in leading the IETF activities. It may include opinions about the direction of working groups, areas, or leadership bodies. These comments may also include elaborations on any of your above answers, if there are further aspects you would like to mention that you do not want shared with the IAB. END OF SECTION: NOT FOR CONFIRMING BODY ============================================================= I believe that the liaisons would still see that information though, but as others have pointed out, they are duty bound to keep it confidential. And to Lloyd's point, whatever the outcome, I entirely agree that the process needs to be seen as being transparent and fair. Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Lloyd W > Sent: 30 September 2022 05:57 > To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> > Cc: NomCom Chair 2022 <nomcom-chair-2022@xxxxxxxx>; nomcom- > 2022@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: NomCom 2022-2023 Call for Nominations > > So, they're willing to put up with any criticism once they're installed in power, > but are uncomfortable with any criticism that might prevent them from > actually reaching power? > > That's... not a good look. > > Lloyd Wood > lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > On 29 Sep 2022, at 09:32, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I am aware of at least one nomination that will probably not be > > made --for fear of retaliation or unnecessary disruption -- if > > either or both will be made public beyond the Chair and Voting > > Members who have an obligation of confidentiality. The > > potential nominee is willing a accept any flack or disruption if > > actually selected and has no problem with their name (as a > > candidate) being public, but believes that disclosure of reasons > > or some parts of the questionnaire responses would lead to > > actions that would be unnecessarily harmful to the community if > > they were public or subject to disclosure by liaisons to the > > bodies that sent them.
