IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Eligibility-discuss] NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 (fwd) Scott Mansfield: RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91893A1763 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zu_4rSHYBm1K for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x834.google.com (mail-qt1-x834.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::834]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 338593A174F for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x834.google.com with SMTP id m33so15399191qtb.3 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=zyAYdcOGk0E4UcAkY1TPpbbT5UKFkYh8g00ScvvJUB0=; b=Qc5ZQg11pr8i/HfV6DOUXff1W+i3qcUL3IIKzNlct0W5kcqJJi4pWotB9xRnVmpiJL Tgkk/j2phrTo+w0m75tUb/IjXGVuRjftmZG3lqwdxoV8zyvhDDaOZI/Q0TM5xw/3Kam0 Fj67ad4PYq5o4Yq3nGs1QMChi2XpBegQkPZZ2hqGsbK+QVZmeJ7G+STv1E6EyTXAK9F9 FBIrnQLUOmLi0H1oYYZFHpuymNQ3B/GW8AEgeWjatnlmxDZTF5OXTIfG0wtmX96w7Kju daWNGmO+oz9zhFlZat8f5vguhar81qAruBZPTdeWn3ZHPX2r3LQKo6f1BJEldaYim3Fe 7wCA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=zyAYdcOGk0E4UcAkY1TPpbbT5UKFkYh8g00ScvvJUB0=; b=Tm3wvns/IK+MaRBf7l3DPB7OXnnegTFI0lXQ2xszDAzL2lown1tvSvKTJXxz2P8oEb JgKyVo1YE5mhKcklXUTO21vCNmL4XI9/M/fo6eJ/kKqQ7G4uJ+Of7YWN0Fnwvu+N6A8x UZUyY+8nUgOrDdK1HXAij32EuBJUR9aLQ3S3RjJgZzNu5dPK6yiKAxEmNUDng5GDt7e+ tJoiRzAC9Q7JWZhlFtc8kIuLQtB+CYbMwzhhHyDgGxWwrYHX65LRzvBU2XOeBJkFDaNg UuEzZWdBADrAXuh/rC8eiIKWBLwqmR4GtMh9g5/uy0TxzG6SxLKjx/ZErklpUzAA4hhP mdrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3WPIm1CNJdyLGJUtox5met1RcctdmRNJYIQBhY0v20iSJfCag8 hF5H7L4lJQBROJd5S354Td9qKg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsAxlYkJZM7QThr+5keal8UwJhtVtexdq7KJYBNL/lK0DYgpnUKUp01i8p9Lk/UpMRZdt/EFA==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2ba2:: with SMTP id e31mr537866qtd.286.1585582428214; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:20bf:8fa4:6117:170d? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:20bf:8fa4:6117:170d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x6sm10692854qke.43.2020.03.30.08.33.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-C0B60BF4-583E-4D79-942D-E0DA153A6017"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:33:46 -0400
Message-Id: <BB54209F-BE2F-4E55-91E0-EDBA59110BF3@fugue.com>
References: <008111D1-A0F7-4784-91BA-0FF824032893@akamai.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "eligibility-discuss@ietf.org" <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <008111D1-A0F7-4784-91BA-0FF824032893@akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17E255)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/4o2HEmYr_pYaYF2HRj183hohYrE>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 (fwd) Scott Mansfield: RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:33:51 -0000

On Mar 30, 2020, at 11:30 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
> 
> The problem with “willingness to participate” as a sole criterion is that there are plenty of people who are willing to participate because they want to completely change the character of the IETF, rather than because they want to serve the IETF and make it more true to its aspirational goals.
>  
> 
> How do you tell the difference?  For the most part, middle-aged American males got us here; do we want to continue that? How do we avoid the IETF equivalent of “regulatory capture” ?
> 
I think that our nomcom selection policy needs to valorize “rough consensus and running code.” That is not a white male value, but it is an IETF value. Right now neither proposal does this. I’ve been asked to write up a proposal for how I think we could solve this problem; the gating factor is that I have to get it approved before I can publish it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email