Comments below [MB].
Mary
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While this is an interesting idea, I worry about yet more work for the Nomcom and its affect on the nomcom timeline. And then there's the whole confidentiality model the Nomcom and CBs are currently tied to and how that would need to be morphed to enable this.
[MB] And the latter is my biggest concern. I think this feedback model has the potential to seriously compromise the Nomcom process. My interpretation of the process as a past chair was that providing this feedback actually violates the confidentiality of the Nomcom process. I know it happens unofficially, but I don't think that's ideal.
[/MB]
And finally, there's the problem that the Nomcom is 10+ people who might not have direct knowledge of how the AD (or IAB or IAOC member) is doing - its difficult to come up with a coordinated and useful and agreed upon set of feedback with that many folk involved. (This is substantially different than taking a vote for whether or not to send someone forward for confirmation).
Several other possible approaches:
1) This isn't a nomcom problem, but a organization problem. Once a year have the AD or IAB member sit down with the IETF chair or IAB chair and get feedback on the chair's perception.
2) Have the nomcom do a straw poll: For AD or IAB member X, given what you know currently would you continue them in office if they were up for reappointment. What's reported is for/against/abstentions.
3) Have the IETF as a whole do a straw poll (same question as above) but allow individuals to provide anonymous feedback through a tool.
4) During the area meetings during the face to face meeting specifically ask the questions: How am I doing? How can I do things better? What's broken with the area? What's working with the area? Point to (3) as a way of providing more detailed feedback.
[MB] I agree with the above. It gets down to some basic people management procedures. There are all sorts of tools, surveys, etc that one can do to get feedback - e.g., 4 way feedback forms. I would posit that this will provide a more objective set of input than what Nomcom receives since it can be done totally anonymously. I would hate to put the Nomcom in the position of having to filter what information might be appropriate (or not) to share. I think it would be way too easy to leak information that could reveal the identity of who provided the input. I don't think the average Nomcom member has the experience to necessarily do that well. And, I think getting that feedback every 2 years is way too infrequent to be very effective.[/MB]
So - not a big fan of involving the Nomcom until other venues have been tried and have failed.
[MB] I totally agree. [/MB]
Mike
At 10:09 AM 3/26/2015, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>Way back when I was on the IESG I was always asking NomCom for feedback (especially negative issues, but in a constructive way).
>
>I think it is crucial for ADs to know what issues they are causing and what they are doing well.
>
>Getting this feedback through any channel, anonymized or otherwise, would be brilliant.
>
>Of course, the ideal is that the feedback is delivered promptly and direct, but that requires a certain amount of resilience on the part of back-feeder. It also does not benefit from aggregation. So feedback from NomCom or another "progress review" body would be very helpful.
>
>Adrian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
>> Sent: 26 March 2015 12:41
>> To: IETF Discussion
>> Cc: Michael Richardson
>> Subject: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal
>>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> During yesterday's plenary, this year's Nomcom chair, Michael
>> Richardson, made a comment that I responded to at the mic. I'd like to
>> see whether there is interest in pursuing it:
>>
>> Michael noted that the two-year cycle for appointees means that those
>> /not/ up for renewal go at least 18 months without feedback. He put
>> forward the need for feedback to them sooner than that, but asserted
>> that having Nomcom do it would not be appropriate.
>>
>> As a natural consequence of its interviewing process, Nomcoms always get
>> quite a bit of information about /all/ appointees, not just the ones
>> currently up for renewal. No one else acquires this kind of information
>> regularly and reliably.
>>
>> Of the 4 nomcoms I've been on, at least two acted on this feedback,
>> having a directed conversation with at least one such appointee each time.
>>
>> So I suggest that providing explicit feedback to all appointees not up
>> for renewal become a regular part of nomcom's deliverables.
>>
>> d/
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net