I agree that postmortems can be useful but I'm not sure that
doing such on a decision to hire Bill instead of Fred is one of
those cases where it woudl be useful, feasiable (due to confidential
info including recommendations) or produce any useful results (unless
teh reason to hire Bill was that he was the IAD's dad)
the same thing with reviewing the decision to hire company A rather than
company B - I can see reviewing the process by which the decision
was made but I do not think (for teh same reasons above) that the
reviewing the decision itself would be all that easy or useful
Scott
----
>From hartmans@xxxxxxx Sun Jan 23 15:17:14 2005
X-Original-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxx (Scott Bradner)
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx, margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
References: <20050121141725.5E8E01E4B04@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:17:16 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20050121141725.5E8E01E4B04@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Scott
Bradner's message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:17:25 -0500 (EST)")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Scott> ps - I'm not sure that its all that useful to be able to
Scott> appeal/review awards if they can not be overturned -
Scott> apealing or reviewing the process that was followed is fine
Scott> but appealling the actual award seems broken
I disagree. Reviewing a specific decision in an operational context
to determine whether the right decision was made can be a useful
feedback step in a control loop of a system. I've found this to be
true whether systems are technical or manigerial.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf