> I think that this is the case where Brian emails the nomcom chair, and asks
to have do his feedback anonymously.
> I was never asked not to share with liasons, but I think that had I been
given a good reason, I would have done exactly that.
I do not want to do either of these things for several reasons.
1. This kind of sub setting is a slippery slope; am I now to become an anonymous forwarder for all possible combinations of the 17 member committee? And add the burden on future NomComs? Life's too short for that.
2. Too much personal judgement is involved. Suppose I get a request like "Don't share this with anyone from Akamai, as I know they have a secret plan to take over the IETF." How am I to judge that? If I forward it, no matter how many disclaimers I add, some will find it hard not to think that I concur with the reasons and content. I do not want to make those kinds of judgements.
3. I am worried that at some point, perhaps at a bar during an IETF a couple of years from now I'll let slip out "can you believe someone thought Akamai had a secret plan" And then, inadvertently give enough other details so that while *I* thought I was protecting the privacy, someone else who heard me could conclude "oh, so John Doe went ahead with this concerns."
4. Related #2 and #3, using Warren's strawman, how do I present anonymous feedback that Warren's has bad hygiene habits while also giving enough information so that recipients of this feedback can make their own judgements.
If this kind of thing is necessary, I think the burden has to be on the person who thinks they are at risk. They can find their own trusted third parties to forward messages, and they can decide how much identifying information is necessary. If the potential risk to the IETF is so great, they might have to disclose themselves. "Judging the validity of anonymous feedback" is not in RFC 8713.
-Rich Salz, 2022-2023 NomCom Chair
