Subject: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:41:15 -0500

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:24:37 -0500

> for renewal become a regular part of nomcom's deliverables.

I think this would be a fine plan.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:09:37 -0000

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:[email-masked]] 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,
>

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:18:28 +0000

>for renewal become a regular part of nomcom's deliverables.

As a newly appointed AD, and not up for renewal soon, I would most
definitely appreciate feedback on how things are going. Be that directly
or otherwise. And as a huge fan of well implemented 306' reviews, for me
'sooner rather than later' is appreciated.

More than happy to be a guinea pig, regardless if it becomes and nomcom
process or not.

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:28:05 -0400

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.  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.

So - not a big fan of involving the Nomcom until other venues have been tried and have failed.

Mike

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:29:38 -0500

> I think this would be a fine plan.

great idea.  nomcom needs stuff to fill its copious spare time.

randy

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:30:52 -0500

I've given negative feedback in the past which I feel subsequently I'd
revise. People do better than I expected and I think they are due the
recognition.

So I'd appreciate some clarification of how I say "...actually, that person
I said NO? Well, I was wrong. They're good"

Because.. well.. I think people deserve the record being set straight. I
don't want my (historical) negative input hanging over somebody who turned
out to have qualities I hadn't seen.

-G

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:32:07 -0500

Hi,

> for renewal become a regular part of nomcom's deliverables.

I get the desire to use data that is picked up accidentally.  And in
general I hate to throw away data and I certainly support providing
the kind of feedback we're talking about.  But my impression is that
the nomcom's job is already onerous, and if we add to their workload
we may be asking too much.

Surely there's some other way to get the anonymous feedback to sitting
people.  Maybe an anonymous remailer is all we need?  There's nothing
for the nomcom to act on anyway if they get feedback about someone not
sitting.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:41:02 -0500

Comments below [MB].

Mary

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
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).
>
> 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
[MB] I totally agree. [/MB]

> >Way back when I was on the IESG I was always asking NomCom for feedback
> (especially negative issues, but in a constructive way).
> >
> >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
> >

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:51:09 -0500

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

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:09:04 -0400

> currently up for renewal.  No one else acquires this kind of information

There are first logistical issues.
 - the datatracker does not have a slot for feedback on other people.
 - the liasons have access to all of this feedback, so it's not particularly
   anonymous; there could well be feedback on the laisons themselves.
 - the nomcom is generally overwhelmed with feedback already
 - we may wish to accept feedback about all manner of IETF "managers"
   (so including WG chairs too)

Second: while it is valuable for people to be able to give feedback in an
        anonymous way, the actual content of the feedback may well be too
        revealing.
        
What I think we need is for the feedback to be provided in a *structured*
way such that we can get to an objective view of what is sometimes a very
subjective interaction.  In some sense, our recent move towards ombudsman and
harassment process is about what to do when the informal methods we have
fail. (This occured to me only now)

I am imagining a situation where an AD/chair/etc. may say something like:
(creating silly situation to illustrate point)
  "It has been pointed out to me that I'm too easily annoyed by people
   wearing white pants after labour day. It's an issue from my culture,
   and I understand I need to be less sensitive about it; particularly since
   we will be shortly meeting in the southern hemisphere where winter and
   summer are interchanged.  If I appear to snear at you based upon your
   dress code, please understand that this is a cultural hangup where I am
   from, and please remind me that of the commitment I'm making now to be
   more tolerant"

I don't have a method of doing the "pointing out" part.
I don't want the nomcom to do this.

What I think needs to happen though, is that:
   a) people on the receiving end of the poor behaviour receive some
      public acknowlegement that their were wronged.
   b) other people do not get the idea that being intolerant is acceptable
      here.
   c) the "offender" gets help to get better.  Perhaps someone better
      schooled in theories of ego/id/internal-judges can better explain
      this part; I am still a "nestling" in this space.

One of the problems the nomcom has is judging whether complaints about poor
interactions are one-of events, particularly if occured some time ago.
Did things get better?  Is this still an issue, or have there been changes?

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:10:26 -0400

> great idea.  nomcom needs stuff to fill its copious spare time.

I think, knowing Randy, that Randy is being sarcastic, but given the lack of
a :-) or something, it's rather hard to say for sure.

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:15:51 -0400

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 <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:52:10 -0500

On 3/26/2015 9:41 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
...
  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] 

I do not understand the nature of this confidentiality concern.

If nomcom interviews disclose a pattern of statement that AD Brute is
confrontational and intimidating in their interactions style, then
having a chat with the AD, describing the pattern of perceptions and the
need for a softer and more respectful and more collaborative style, does
not violate anyone's confidentiality.

d/

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:58:17 -0500

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 <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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

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

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:06:47 -0500

Dave,

I think this is an interesting idea.

I think there are two questions here:

1) Should we start doing regular (yearly?) performance evaluations of our leadership (IAB, IAOC, IESG).  Doing this on a regular basis would be good, give people constructive feedback, and would allow people to improve based on the feedback.  As opposed to doing the job for two years and being renewed or not by the NomCom.

2) Who should do this?  The NomCom, the chairs of each group, some other group?  It is a lot of work to do it well, and as many people have noted, the NomCom is already very busy.

Bob

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:21:39 -0500

> for the nomcom to act on anyway if they get feedback about someone not

Some of the feedback that ADs get publicly is incredibly harsh; I'd be a little concerned about an unfiltered anonymous feedback path.   So I think there would have to be _some_ filtering mechanism, and a remailer probably wouldn't cut it.

But I do think Randy has a point about nomcom workload.   Maybe we need another committee... ;)

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:29:59 -0500

On Mar 26, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.

Actually this cuts both ways.   If all the AD hears is positive feedback, and the positive feedback is about things that some people appreciate and some people don't, the people who are bothered by the AD's behavior are likely to experience more of it rather than less, which is unfortunate.

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:11:22 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael StJohns" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "'IETF Discussion'"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Michael Richardson'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 2:28 PM

> 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.  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).
> 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.

Michael,

Interesting to see this at the top of the list, a classic top-down
management approach.  Even in top-down managed organisations (which is
not how I view the IETF), I see bottom-up review, which in this case
would be the AD sitting down with the WG Chairs in their Area to say,
how am I doing?  I think that that would be a better fit for the IETF.

(Likewise, WG Chairs should be asking I-D editors for their feedback)

Tom Petch

> 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.
> >Way back when I was on the IESG I was always asking NomCom for
feedback (especially negative issues, but in a constructive way).

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:23:15 -0400

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 <[email-masked]>
Date:  Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 11:15 AM
To:  Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Cc:  IETF Discussion <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: Nomcom feedback to appointees not up for renewal

> perceived to make sure I can fix my responses if needed.  I tend to ask people
> I know, but welcome feedback.
> 
> 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
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 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
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00, and resulted
>> in several revisions to RFC 3777 (that were later folded into
>> 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.
>>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:52:38 -0400

> how am I doing?  I think that that would be a better fit for the IETF.

This is a good thing to do period.
But, I don't think it address strange/rude/inappropriate interactions that
seem to occur from my anecdotal observation in cross-area review, or between
peers rather than up-down.

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:38:24 +0000

> On Mar 26, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

It seems to me that the most straightforward way to handle that would be to give the feedback on an incumbent to the incumbent. The way to handle confidentiality, I would expect, is to ask the person commenting for one of three instructions:

1) do not give this feedback to the incumbent
2) give this feedback to the incumbent in an anonymized form
3) give this feedback to the incumbent

And note that only (3) gives the incumbent the opportunity to discuss the feedback with the person that gave it. There is a part of me that wants to not offer (3), but I can imagine it might make some people comfortable sharing that would not otherwise be.

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:52:31 +0000

> On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

mumble. correction. "not to offer (1)".

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:08:39 -0500

Responses below [MB].

> not violate anyone's confidentiality.
[MB] Because some of the information could inadvertently leak who provided
that feedback and there are cases where individuals might not want that to
happen.  For example, if the AD asked for an example of the situation where
the behavior was exhibited and the Nomcom member provided an example, that
could often result in the AD knowing exactly who provided that input.   In
cases where there might already be a strained working relationship, this
could make these worse.  If the community decides adding this feedback task
 is important, then I personally would limit my input to Nomcom so that
none of the details could clearly point to me in cases where I am concerned
with my working relationship with the individual. That would be a bad thing
for the Nomcom process in my experience, as these specific examples often
provide very valuable information to the Nomcom.  I personally think the
bad behaviors should be dealt with outside the nomcom process as I think
this gets down to basic people management.  Doing people management
indirectly via input provided by Nomcom isn't an effective model IMHO.  The
majority of the input to Nomcom is quite subjective and trying to identify
the exact behavior that needs to be corrected in cases where Nomcom gets
negative input is not at all straightforward.
[/MB]

---

From: "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:30:09 -0700

> great idea.  nomcom needs stuff to fill its copious spare time.

I have to agree with Randy here.  I've done the nomcom job before, and I 
have to say, I was not sitting around looking for things to fill my time 
up with.  I seem to remember many "hair on fire" days/nights trying to 
close everything up by the appointed date.  I don't discount the value 
of the feedback, but I don't think adding it to the nomcom's plate is 
necessarily the most optimal solution.

Christopher

--
李柯睿
Avt tace, avt loqvere meliora silentio
Check my PGP key here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.vcf