Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 10 January 2015 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC0D1A70FD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:30:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 c3G2Az-co5c0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:30:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x233.google.com (mail-pd0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB5731A700D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:30:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id fp1so23364006pdb.10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:30:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QbV47zaHIeElqfGr27pZucSS01Nn4tU63vowpRwl+00=; b=gqDY6QUqSt6xlxCePrf0d+VPVsX1fYmoQf/Xuz3CwdhKlZMaMye+ufsKetHfurnjM9 gi/DybcRBZGFSYcz4bIq6G50arBqFaDsA3SBi2zUtRqaaIpHjsN0FKqZkiCjrjk4e6wa HO9LqNVWmjDUB3biP48edB/EZMQvgDoTFwTazTCnrdaJXR2BxxxxVqjpL5EtokM1Qi34 dKFwL26QJ+ISbI4FnTobhm+FcqxEpxtuwCyFawfMeCuJraXVj773Cs1XctVrQwnt8R+F 6gPDSMrRSSQACLpkwRH/22AUz/iNvKgDdxEMcpqI3g7d+pOhn/JC5UuBZIwd71ukXLsj VCZg==
X-Received: by 10.68.136.98 with SMTP id pz2mr33451097pbb.154.1420918240227; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:30:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:5e1b:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:5e1b:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nh4sm10368161pdb.37.2015.01.10.11.30.37 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:30:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54B17DDB.3080005@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 08:30:35 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <54B02B51.1070308@cs.tcd.ie> <5237.1420905553@sandelman.ca> <20150110183324.5CED31A6F11@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150110183324.5CED31A6F11@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1LnfXr8L_l7SM5BRb1Ah_6Lxq54>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 19:30:42 -0000

On 11/01/2015 07:33, Michael StJohns wrote:
> At 10:59 AM 1/10/2015, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> That's why I wrote "contribution" --- we could imagine some system of points,
>> with the datatracker being the scoreboard, but I'm not clear that we need an
>> particularly complex system or overly restrictive system.
> 
> But we do need - my strongly held opinion -  an "objective" one and that's harder to craft with respect to the definition of "contribution".  Whereas simply counting meetings is objective and repeatable.
> 
> 
> To be honest, I foresee a spate of throw away IDs being crafted to be counted as contributions and that might not be all that useful for our process.

Yes, it seems inevitable that any objective criterion that can be met
at low cost will be gamed by people (or companies) that for whatever
reason want to be on Nomcom. Submitting a draft is a very low cost
operation these days. Occupying a formal role in a WG or directorate,
or becoming an IETF-stream RFC author, would be much harder to game.

    Brian