Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

[sob at harvard.edu (Scott Bradner)]

I agree that postmortems can be useful but I'm not sure that 
doing such on a decision to hire Bill instead of Fred is one of
those cases where it woudl be useful, feasiable (due to confidential
info including recommendations) or produce any useful results (unless
teh reason to hire Bill was that he was the IAD's dad)

the same thing with reviewing the decision to hire company A rather than 
company B - I can see reviewing the process by which the decision
was made but I do not think (for teh same reasons above) that the
reviewing the decision itself would be all that easy or useful

Scott

----
>From hartmans at mit.edu  Sun Jan 23 15:17:14 2005
X-Original-To: sob at newdev.harvard.edu
Delivered-To: sob at newdev.harvard.edu
To: sob at harvard.edu (Scott Bradner)
Cc: ietf at ietf.org, margaret at thingmagic.com
Subject: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
References: <20050121141725.5E8E01E4B04 at newdev.harvard.edu>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:17:16 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20050121141725.5E8E01E4B04 at newdev.harvard.edu> (Scott
 Bradner's message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:17:25 -0500 (EST)")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <sob at harvard.edu> writes:

    Scott> ps - I'm not sure that its all that useful to be able to
    Scott> appeal/review awards if they can not be overturned -
    Scott> apealing or reviewing the process that was followed is fine
    Scott> but appealling the actual award seems broken

I disagree.  Reviewing a specific decision in an operational context
to determine whether the right decision was made can be a useful
feedback step in a control loop of a system.  I've found this to be
true whether systems are technical or manigerial.

--Sam


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf