Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 09 January 2015 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 DA7751A009E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:14:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 kjF3ox77toG0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FFA01A2119 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69CA203AA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:20:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 6AD7D637FE; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:14:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F2F637EA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:14:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom
In-Reply-To: <20038FAABC32083290783A97@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <D54C3DE17A3E5C7B032F6FB4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <BC1A05C1-6198-4325-8F46-8E5AB9D0DFCF@cs.georgetown.edu> <20038FAABC32083290783A97@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
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, 09 Jan 2015 13:14:42 -0500
Message-ID: <32131.1420827282@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5yfZPfgG--t1_f271toFbv8GNZ4>
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: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 18:14:47 -0000

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
    > refers to liaisons being present and able to comment during
    > deliberations about particular candidates (and I understand it has at
    > least sometimes been interpreted that way), then there is at some risk
    > of chilling effects or inappropriate influences, even with the best of
    > intentions.  In that regard, I am more concerned about input the Nomcom
    > doesn't get because someone is concerned about damaging an existing

In the past 3 nomcoms that I've been involved with, the nomcom has felt the
opposite.  That the Liason has (probably appropriately) refused to comment
when the nomcom really does want to know more about what happened during the
XYZ-fiasco, etc.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-