Re: [ietf-nomcom] Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility - draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-01

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 30 July 2013 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66E921F9D7B for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.488
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RKG2gwOu2Ukp for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A3D21F9D70 for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913632018A; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:21:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id E158963A7C; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:13:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DF5636AD; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:13:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130730072017.0d2397d0@elandnews.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130730022629.0b408308@elandnews.com> <32379.1375179842@sandelman.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20130730034456.0d81a700@elandnews.com> <21977.1375188403@sandelman.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20130730072017.0d2397d0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:13:40 -0400
Message-ID: <12009.1375197220@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:48:00 -0700
Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility - draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-01
X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process <ietf-nomcom.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-nomcom>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:15:13 -0000

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
    >> I see. It's not complete enough to be useful.

    > There were comments from two person on the -01.  I'll propose some text to
    > clarify the "personnel" term.

    >> The authors of the draft are not mentioned, or are any of the people in the
    >> acknowledgements, nor are the WG chairs.

    > No, the current usage of personnel is to list the Area Director and the
    > document shepherd (usually a WG Chair or WG secretary).

    >> And using this might increase strife about who should be included in
    >> acknowlegements.

    > I would like to avoid the acknowledgements discussion. :-)

I know.
But, it doesn't even mention document authors, so it's a poor place to get a
list of active people.  Either it could be improved, or another thing could
be used.
Even just
     "grep From:" * | psed -e 's/.*(<\S@\S>).*/\1/' | sort | uniq -c

(* == all emails to @ietf.org lists)

would be, in my opinion, better.

    > Agreed.

    > I'll put it this way:

    > - Does this proposal make a difference to you?

From 1996 until 2005, when my son was born, I was nomcom-eligible by the old
rules.   Between 2004 and mid-2012 I was not nomcom eligible.
I certainly was at 15 meetings prior to 2005.
Did I attend 2 meetings in the last 5?
In 2006, I would have remained eligible.
Between 2007 and 2010 I would have remained in-eligible.
(I attended more than half of those remotely, and reviewed lots of IPsec WG
documents, and became involved in ROLL)
In 2011 I was not eligible according to current rules, but I would have been
eligible under your rule 1 meeting earlier.

    > - Will it help people with experience be NomCom-eligible?

it is better than before, but not significantly.

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


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works