IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 02 August 2013 17:05 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 2028D11E8105 for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.202, 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 aN4lbZ3oYJXO for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD90521E8107 for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3848320170; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 14:11:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 7741F63A7C; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 13:03:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6535963A5E; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 13:03:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130730085204.0d6ca950@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> <12009.1375197220@sandelman.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20130730085204.0d6ca950@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: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:03:30 -0400
Message-ID: <7005.1375463010@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 15:01:15 -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: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:05:08 -0000

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
    > There will be cases, as mentioned above, where a person will not be
    > NomCom-eligible.  I do not think that it is not relevant.  The previous
    > questions were to try and get a sense of what people consider as making the
    > difference.

    >> > - Will it help people with experience be NomCom-eligible?
    >>
    >> it is better than before, but not significantly.

    > I read "not significantly" as meaning that it does not make the difference
    > between now and what is being proposed.

I don't think that I understand your sentence.

I mean that I don't think that your change in rule will make very many people
eligible who were not already eligible, nor will it keep people eligible when
there are reasons why they can not travel.

In particular, I think that if we want more gendre and age equity, then we
must be aware of this childbirth constraint on travel (on both men and women).

    >> In the meantime, subscribing is never wrong ...

    > I am subscribed. :-)  My message triggered an anti-abuse rule.  That is why
    > it went to the moderation queue.

I thought I was subscribed, but I might not be.

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email