Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 15 February 2015 15:34 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 24CBC1A7005 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:34:50 -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 lUl8TmsDiPDw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:34:47 -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 83BCD1A700F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81163203AA; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:42:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 35EE863A21; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:34:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2F3637F4; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:34:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzwoqKAN27kFgWSgVX80xWu3niN9qxaGakSKs+D+1h4ssA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <732CCD31-0F13-472F-9825-C5F5D650C41B@vigilsec.com> <2457EE06-4960-40B5-AF10-2EDFBF18B2B6@nominum.com> <7C601AA4-55C4-43FE-B2FE-1D22BD73F166@vigilsec.com> <CAKHUCzyJ62hVyJVVLuL5-nXx_i5VO2cW3LA6R1sdZbDHxoY_Tw@mail.gmail.com> <43ADF7ED-6A42-4097-8FFA-5DA0FC21D07A@vigilsec.com> <CAKHUCzyfB+GhNqmDhrzki4tVn0faMLyt_cqgeHFcQL2b5pkkAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYLuknVuY-n6R18_WxW=67+MaE8MZvWyhrGEhofEXLRwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKHUCzwoqKAN27kFgWSgVX80xWu3niN9qxaGakSKs+D+1h4ssA@mail.gmail.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: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:34:44 -0500
Message-ID: <20738.1424014484@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EL96nJ1OQ17uhCd7UX4yBT2_yto>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:34:50 -0000

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>; wrote:
    > 1) AUTH48 is interesting as a metric; it's clearly an indicator of a
    > document actually getting published, and one that doesn't get delayed
    > outside the author's control unlike publication. Moreover, anyone going
    > through AUTH48 has had to deal with an IESG telechat on their document;
    > that's extremely useful experience in leadership selection. Possibly
    > "last call" and "telechat" are also good enough - and interesting in as
    > much as a document that "fails" last call is arguably as important a
    > contribution as one that goes on to publication.

So, instead of AUTH48, you'd pick an earlier state like IESG Review.
    (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/draft-iesg/, but
    actually I think write-up and the diagram are old and missing some states...)

That (perhaps correctly) skips things that go through the Independent
Submission Stream.

I agree that including the authors into the state above solves the problem of
a document which is so good that it needs no review and no tickets.
    
    > 2) I think the document uploader concept is good, but limiting the
    > documents to only those which get scheduled time in a WG session isn't
    > so good; some WGs don't meet often, or even at all, and a document
    > that's so well crafted that it doesn't need discussion in a face to
    > face meeting is a really good document in my opinion. Clearly we don't
    > want arbitrary documents either. Any WG document would seem a "good"
    > contribution, and I suspect any document with a shepherd assigned
    > should be safe, too, since that effectively implies an expectation to
    > publish.

The problem with shephard assigned is that it could be very late in the
process, and a document which *does* get a lot of discussion and revision,
represents a lot of contribution of effort.   It is not unreasonable to me
that a single document occupies the entire IETF "life" of 3-4 persons.

    > 3) This works for WGs that use a ticketing system and have
    > meetings. Not sure what percentage that actually is.

A number of WG chairs don't like the current ticketing system, but increasing
I think that WGs are going to use some ticket system.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [