Re: Comments on Composition and Comportment of the IETF Nominating Committee draft

With regard to the structured interview item in your draft, I was 
unclear whether your documents intends to say that each interview should 
include the structured questions or were you aiming to say that the 
interviews MUST ONLY consist of the structured questions.

As far as I know, the former is common practice, and a good idea.  The 
latter would unduly constrain the committee from asking about things 
they think are important to the specific candidate, for example based on 
the feedback they have received.

Yours,

Joel

On 7/6/2026 10:03 PM, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 01:11 S Moonesamy <[email protected] 
> <mailto:sm%[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Mallory,
>     At 05:13 AM 06-07-2026, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>
>
>     >I'm not sure I remember. Could you elaborate this comment please?
>
>     It's in RFC 7704 (Page 4).
>
>
> Incredible. Thanks a lot for sharing this. I’ll cite it in the next 
> version.
>
>
>     >Disclosure of interest to the chair, who then decides if there's a
>     >conflict. Simple recusal.
>
>     It could be a bit more complicated than that.
>
>
> Certainly but I don’t know if the document can or should try to 
> encompass the complexity or simply describe a process for addressing it.
>
> I am open to text suggestions that better elaborate this and any of 
> the comportment sections.
>
>
>     >It's here. I've edited the main copy.
>     ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hbr.org_2016_04_how-2Dto-2Dtake-2Dthe-2Dbias-2Dout-2Dof-2Dinterviews&d=DwIBAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=krANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=YIrtQwrRtb_e31ldkUQjV6tcWTEcpf5fCSgJN5EFLRkjqZ3pHWlqlpLKxKQuPKb-&s=MBhR2Q0q-JMD3j71Sm58-ZD61u61e_r2AQAlRgDPkEI&e=
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hbr.org_2016_04_how-2Dto-2Dtake-2Dthe-2Dbias-2Dout-2Dof-2Dinterviews&d=DwIBAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=krANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=YIrtQwrRtb_e31ldkUQjV6tcWTEcpf5fCSgJN5EFLRkjqZ3pHWlqlpLKxKQuPKb-&s=MBhR2Q0q-JMD3j71Sm58-ZD61u61e_r2AQAlRgDPkEI&e=>
>     >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hbr.org_2016_04_how-2Dto-2Dtake-2Dthe-2Dbias-2Dout-2Dof-2Dinterviews&d=DwIBAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=krANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=YIrtQwrRtb_e31ldkUQjV6tcWTEcpf5fCSgJN5EFLRkjqZ3pHWlqlpLKxKQuPKb-&s=MBhR2Q0q-JMD3j71Sm58-ZD61u61e_r2AQAlRgDPkEI&e=
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hbr.org_2016_04_how-2Dto-2Dtake-2Dthe-2Dbias-2Dout-2Dof-2Dinterviews&d=DwIBAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=krANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=YIrtQwrRtb_e31ldkUQjV6tcWTEcpf5fCSgJN5EFLRkjqZ3pHWlqlpLKxKQuPKb-&s=MBhR2Q0q-JMD3j71Sm58-ZD61u61e_r2AQAlRgDPkEI&e=>
>
>
>     Thanks.  The answers to the questions would not be relevant in my
>     opinion.
>
>
> Fair. My thinking was to provide some authoritative example of how 
> industry thinks about this. I’m open to citing a better and more 
> relevant publication.
>
> Thanks,
> -Mallory