Including my plea at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg92570.html by
reference, but ...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <
kathleen(_dot_)moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Sorry for the top post.
I am sure many of us would appreciate feedback directly as well. I do ask
folks for feedback after contentious sessions to see how I may have been
perceived to make sure I can fix my responses if needed. I tend to ask
people I know, but welcome feedback.
The hard part is probably that ADs run from one thing to the next at IETF
meetings and we are a bit rushed at times.
I have gotten some unsolicited feedback at this meeting, and in one case
it was a newcomer. That was positive, therefore a bit easier to approach
someone to provide such feedback. If folks have constructive feedback,
given directly with good timing works for me.
I'll follow the discussion to see ideas for anonymous feedback as well.
The hard part is that anonymous feedback will most likely be constructive
and positive feedback will likely go directly to the person. What ever
anonymous process is used will likely just get one side of the story, so
reviews of this may require 360 reviews if there appears to be an issue.
Now, that's intriguing ...
I don't believe that anyone has been as vocal and vociferous as Mary Barnes
in pointing out how much Nomcoms have to beg for feedback, and how little
feedback Nomcoms get in many cases.
And I don't want to think of more things for Nomcoms to do (the process
takes something like eight months now. Full term human pregnancy takes nine
months).
But I'm wondering if splitting this into two tasks might work better.
- a 360 review, NOT performed by Nomcoms in their copious spare time ( :-) )
- a Nomcom review of the needs of the area and of the willing nominees,
with that 360 review as part of the input that is available to be
considered.
I wonder what a significant chunk of the past Nomcom chairs might think
about that (again, including
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg92570.html by
reference).
Spencer