As a person interested in growth, I like to hear feedback on how I'm doing
and what I can do better.
My response to this feedback varies from gratitude to anger, possibly based
on who is delivering the message, but likely also influenced by how the
deliver it.
I am generally opposed to soliciting anonymous feedback on performance.
There aren't that many circumstances that genuinely require anonymity, and
it seems to me that the corners of the Internet where anonymous posting is
allowed are not the places most likely to generate healthy growth. A layer
of indirection (e.g., a comment to the co-AD, ombud, or other trusted IETF
participant) can provide that anonymity.
Feedback should be delivered as soon after the subject behavior as possible,
to reinforce the message. Online surveys are weak for this purpose. I like
the idea of a 360-style review, but am reluctant to impose more work on
volunteers.
Lee
From: Kathleen Moriarty
<kathleen(_dot_)moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 11:15 AM
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal
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.
Thanks,
Kathleen
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
<spencerdawkins(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I have opinions about Dave's question, and about what's appeared in this
thread so far, but if I might up-level a bit ...
Soon after he was named GEN AD the first time, Some Guy Named Russ asked all
of the past Nomcom chairs if they would be willing to form a "design team"
and talk about their experiences. Almost all said yes. The participants were:
o 2006-2007 Andrew Lange
o 2005-2006 Ralph Droms
o 2004-2005 Danny McPherson
o 2003-2004 Richard Draves
o 2002-2003 Phil Roberts
o 2001-2002 Theodore Ts'o
o 2000-2001 Bernard Aboba
o 1999-2000 Avri Doria
o 1998-1999 Donald Eastlake 3rd
o 1997-1998 Michael St. Johns
o 1996-1997 Geoff Huston
o 1993-1994 Fred Baker
The collective experiences of the "design team" was collected into
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00, and resulted
in several revisions to RFC 3777 (that were later folded into
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437).
I really wish we would consider forming something like that group of recent
past Nomcom chairs, so that when someone pops up with suggestions for the way
we select, unselect, and provide community feedback to people reviewed by
Nomcom, we could take advantage of that considerable experience in evaluating
it.
Spencer, speaking as the scribe for the previous Nomcom chairs design team,
who learned a heck of a lot from that experience
--
Best regards,
Kathleen