Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Tue, 17 February 2015 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355881A8AC5 for <>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:46:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FGrAK9V23Ge6 for <>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:46:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C835A1A897C for <>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:46:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l2so39115834wgh.9 for <>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:46:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NKbnaBQFo7zCoFKS3OSM0bSypf9UIvYJgEuXiXBCUik=; b=uv2rKMv4REefookwJliyOcgj70RluNQ5jm8UJPecswMLafpQBjsxkao+OhEQPCPTQ3 8LxNWusbOiLvjEFMLywKa5oopGQ4xcFqR+RgG+UQNRGtWJvTNczRqb/byuFbiKhl5qgI 2yWaVuYVLsSHkcI8Auogp5CYXzRQXjoGB9o6AF8AsmqMUWyiZDuRJUjQ1+JJSWq/2jlr Wfm2KzP+Ek6cYV6IJjeOTe7Ix3ayUex97gpncEh7laTuy83XESCnMN+f3bdse66orjaH jeveJydlHkaoBgVX+SlHb78UYCsQ2cNoXQJORl4inIr3Lgr5AYgXkVzs6dN7d8ZW3d+R xDFw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id di2mr2961245wjc.4.1424216795493; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:46:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:46:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:46:35 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: Sam Hartman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01419d1c2dbbda050f5150f0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
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: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:46:39 -0000

Hi Sam,

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Sam Hartman <> wrote:

> I actually think the discussion is still ongoing, and I I'm unsure that
> all the threads have really resolved.

I think that's exactly my point, plus maybe trying to converge on text to
change in the BCP might help us toward resolution.

Your summary points also match my understanding, so I won't repeat them

So, I think we're left with a number of questions:
> 1) Do we want to write forward-looking requirements for nomcom.  That
> is, do we want to be more open than our tools would support today in
> writing nomcom eligibility?

I think that would be a good idea at a minimum, if we can't come up with
new volunteer requirements right away.

> 2)  Do we want to allow folks  who are participants already to have more
> relaxed participation requirements (some remotely) for nomcom
> eligibility?

The consensus for that seems to be yes, though the challenge is nailing
down a new set of relaxed participation requirements on which there's
consensus.  In many cases the metrics I've seen are related to meetings, or
getting time on meeting agendas, etc., but that seems rather arbitrary
given that there's plenty of WG activity that never lands on agendas
because they don't need face time.  There were some attempts to tie
participation to a document reaching AUTH48, but that too is arbitrary
because a document might not even pass the IESG because of laggy
directorate or expert reviews.  On the flipside, there are some WGs that go
inactive for long periods of time, so perhaps they shouldn't count as
"participation" in between meetings.

> 3) If the answer to two is yes, should they still have to attend
> in-person meetings from time to time?  If so how often?

Good question.  Clearly the intent is for it to be less than 3/5, at least
for some period of time.  Michael suggested you qualify initially by
attending 3/5, but then as long as you keep up some lesser criteria, you
remain qualified.  Attending meetings is among those, but it's not the only
way to stay qualified.  Again, though, we need to hammer out the continued
qualification details.

> 4)  Do we want to allow those who have become members of our community
> remotely--chaired working groups, met some criteria--who have done the
> work to become significantly involved remotely even though it is hard to
> be eligible for nomcom?

More precisely: Should they be able to become selecting members of the
NomCom?  They will have to be able to participate in the multiple
interviews and other meetings that tend to take place during meetings.

> In conclusion, I think we've had a good wide-ranging discussion here,
> but I think it's time for the doc shepherd (not someone writing text,
> but someone chairing the discussion) to actually come along and chair.
> I've taken a loose stab above but would be happy to step aside for
> whoever actually has that responsibility.

Absent the Sergeant-at-Arms or an IESG member stepping up to moderate this
thread, I think that falls to me as the editor, and that's exactly what I
was trying to do here.

I propose that if we can't come up with a new set of criteria right away, a
very clear statement ought to be added to Section 4.14 saying that this
needs to be revisited "soon", as remote participation tools improve, so
that there isn't a continued bias toward well-funded participants among
those selecting the IETF's leadership.