Qualifying for NomCom

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB1812D67B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rM8LL8wvXo5F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22b.google.com (mail-vk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22b]) (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 1D17912D64D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id c4so109674151vkb.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=0dcCtNBjLo+OTPMNpm4kreoAN1jN2a3pdjPUakL1ik8=; b=rgChj9ZYfQ83IYT7sSsoTODSBwUJpNUDRKZ2YkgbcSyzjQurnpgxWKnXepLMdqPucv UGIe4HdIyR7cVqMhAk51bALE+6cHXaWfuEuIZKxilaHo1v7YCXLyAbkBSkkTChQq6MyF vspLKeeDuvXSMXw6Fjk1Kdzzyw6kXXajcXtKr3HfbrkaZqln7d3OyKpqP2ZJDeoBG+pA K6j7nsRiykjRpahZnarhBYgJCvBhMzaleWPQeBB7/2bfxng+uTmA7DONFfc1IQ2GOMxM hEn25MHAFBiQHYRvgbUWsE3Ip29owhInJBmhrIHY0/ehESOM+EObsWwcBozBAwlgDcXS AiGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=0dcCtNBjLo+OTPMNpm4kreoAN1jN2a3pdjPUakL1ik8=; b=LnEurxYtjzOkxoBAAUU4YfJMnl6C/DfICx+2KSRkP9k0YrvXdFtOcHIpnvEvku0nKx pAq9I7b5Pz4OZ5IlYcjJpI4odPXJkgyLBTMlvGMFn6Do3V6xfBaNLZp8d5gKgbEFQPmk XLAtn8Uy/+k8mZyl5ruCn6FK0cL6czNxKlXG40Nx71yQabbG772dmRoiqkOMnAgidBcH hvOBTX1xA0KyVOuFaQ2Es1FdVCVoq2j0Fm20FlR+iTjYHP9Wh+9w+J8YFDx7b2titgSA VcOGrrNF/R+iBLLtzFwXzlSZF8NwtAeU+FSHUiReWSxlJa+7PZZZyFoiKfZTE73OUsei o+XA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJL/fWU7zmP4TaXHLLCsNsyq4j/JKk+8Jbg96uFOpI4ASTkPSGDADRUrRoXFObmW4o5o8JPUqUCw6lbzyQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id b141mr2117961vka.82.1460052705192; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:11:45 -0300
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwY0FuDp5=RMFEhUMtkK=XNDxX2dogvVY7+OSy88jrrvOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Qualifying for NomCom
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143f846d8f947052fe9024d
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0dAqECeJ9URtDeC97AK_SQrQ34c>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:11:48 -0000

Yes, this again.

I've refreshed RFC7437bis in the datatracker since we're effectively
between active NomCom periods, so now's a good time to take another look at

For those that didn't follow along last time, the big showstopper for this
draft as I have it now had to do with updating the criteria for qualifying
to serve on the NomCom.  The current draft says:

(1) To qualify, one must have attended three of the last five in-person
meetings, as it's been for a long time now.

(2) This is regularly criticized as selecting for attendees with the
support and budget to travel to the meetings, and possibly excludes people
who make substantial or numerous IETF contributions but participate
remotely more than in person.

We made previous attempts on this list to come up with new criteria given
(2) above, but weren't successful at coming to consensus, so I took them
back out, leaving the text that's there now.  The previous thread:

I'd like to take another run at this before the next NomCom really gets
going.  One suggestion I was given here at IETF 95 is to come up with some
system that's worth trying, and not over-engineer it to protect against
gaming or other abuses until such time as such abuse is evident.  It might,
for example, be sufficient defense to empower the NomCom Chair or the IETF
Chair (or both) with a "panic button", making them able to declare that
selection criteria will fall back to what we have now if it looks like the
proposed new qualification system is likely to yield an inappropriate set
of selecting NomCom members.

Comments welcome.