Subject: [Rfced-future] Replacement text for Section 4.2

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:59:58 -0400

Replacement for section 4.2:

         <<< Set a schedule - could be omitted, but this is a promise to 
the community

                as well as a schedule for the IED/RSEA >>>
    No more often than semi-annually nor less often than bi-yearly, the
    IETF Executive Director will send out to the community a call for
    input on the performance of the RSEA.

     <<< Separate the IED's recommendation from the feedback process -

      there may not actually be an action that needs an immediate 
recommendation >>>

    <<<< the IED acts as the confidentiality mediator, anonymous and 
confidential

             comments get tagged in the document that goes to the LLC - 
this provides

             needed context. >>>>
    The IETF Executive Director and the stream managers will review the
    received feedback and produce a draft summary (a paraphrase)
    including both positive and derogatory information.  Any feedback
    provided anonymously shall be tagged as such in the summary. Any
    feedback provided with a request for confidentiality shall likewise
    be tagged in the summary and the IETF Executive Director MAY
    comment on the weight that may be appropriate to apply to the
    comment based on their knowledge of the submitter.  The stream
    managers should ensure that any of their concerns are added to the
    document at this point and MAY also provide any commentary on the
    externally provided feedback that they feel appropriate.

    <<< Make sure that the LLC hears both sides of the coin >>>
    That draft feedback, redacted with respect to any names associated
    with confidential comments and with respect to the IED's weight
    evaluations, shall be provided to the RSEA with for comment or
    rebuttal, and such comments shall be incorporated as an appendix to
    the final feedback document provided to the IETF LLC Board.

    << The previous text had this being a recommendation being sent to
       the LLC, but instead this is a set of feedback, as no decision may be
       pending by the LLCin the near future.  The IED will provide a 
recommendation
       upon request from the LLC based on their own knowledge and any 
previous
       feedback documents... >>>
    The LLC may take into account any recent feedback, along with any
    recommendations of the IETF Executive Director in any of its
    decisions related to the RSEA and their contract(s) or tasking.

    Whether the RSEA role is structured as a contractual or employee
    relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC and the IETF Executive
    Director to determine.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:34:50 -0700

>     the final feedback document provided to the IETF LLC Board.

This doesn't seem appropriate to me.

If people want to provide confidential comments, then they shouldn't be
supplied to the RSEA,
nor should the IED's weights. This is not a legal proceeding, it's a
performance review, and
there's no generic reason that the RSEA should get to hear all the feedback
that the LLC is
receiving.

-Ekr

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:49:07 -0400

I mostly agree with Ekr here.

The only edge case I see is one that I know has come up with nomcoms. 
If nomcoms see a pattern of reports of an issue, they have been known to 
say to a candidate "there have been issues raised about X.  Do you have 
any comment on that?"   This is not the same as showing the candidate 
the feedback, even sanitized.  It does reveal that information has been 
provided.  (And, even more importantly, ti does not give even a large 
portion of the feedback.)  The nomcoms where I know this came up 
concluded that the combination of seeing the candidates reaction and 
giving then a chance to respond was worth pushing that envelop.   Do we 
consider that the selection committee or LLC or someone has that right 
under this process already?  Do we want to say anything about it?

Yours,
Joel

On 7/29/2021 11:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:00 PM Michael StJohns <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> there's no generic reason that the RSEA should get to hear all the 
> feedback that the LLC is
> receiving.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
>

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:59:02 +1000

I agree with both Ekr and Joel here.

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021, at 13:49, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Do we consider that the selection committee or LLC or someone has that right 

I think that letting someone know about notable trends is generally reasonable, both because that information can be relevant to their performance (and actionable) and because it relies on k-anonymity.

I don't think that there is a special need to document it though.  As with a lot of this process, we do rely to some extent on the people involved exercising good judgment, respect, and sensitivity (that is, after all, what respecting requests for confidentiality amount to anyway).

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:50:11 +1200

> I agree with both Ekr and Joel here.

I concur. If an unwelcome behaviour pattern is noticed, it deserves attention. But that hardly needs writing down.

   Brian

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 19:00:29 +0900

Hello everybody,

On this topic, I generally agree with others (Brian, Martin, and those 
before them). Just in case, on comment below.

On 2021-07-30 08:59, Michael StJohns wrote:
>     including both positive and derogatory information.

If this text every gets used, please change "derogatory" to "negative".
I hope it's obvious why.

Regards,   Martin.

>     Any feedback

-- 
Prof. Dr.sc. Martin J. Dürst
Department of Intelligent Information Technology
College of Science and Engineering
Aoyama Gakuin University
Fuchinobe 5-1-10, Chuo-ku, Sagamihara
252-5258 Japan