Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Dave Cridland <[e-mail]> 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  [ 
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [