Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 12 February 2015 03:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8085D1A1EFE for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:49:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4dwgdC72adw4 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:48:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6420E1A6F14 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:48:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA9B203CD for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:56:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 2DAAE63A21; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:48:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FAB1637F4 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:48:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: ietf <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:48:54 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:49:01 -0000

   mcr> So anyone can upload at any time.  If the WG takes your document on,
   mcr> then the datatracker clearly knows this, so that part is easy to check.
   mcr> If you draft-author- is scheduled, this will require some additional
   mcr> datatracker effort for the WG chairs to indicate that your document
   mcr> goes into
   mcr> the agenda... but, I we wanted to be able to track which documents were
   mcr> discussed into which WG anyway for all sorts of reasons, so I think
   mcr> that his
   mcr> work will already happen.

Ted Lemon <> wrote:
    > I worry that this criterion will result in people being even more
    > aggressive about scheduling talks on documents that were never
    > discussed on the mailing list.

I too worried about that when I wrote it.

I then considered that this is a form of gaming the system, and if the chairs
are participating in it, then this is a problem.  This gaming occurs now
without any (nomcom-eligible) reward, and I think it has other root causes,
which if we could discover we could address.

Or to put it differently: we already have this problem, and we already need
to fix it.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-