Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <> Sun, 15 February 2015 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CBC1A7005 for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:34:50 -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 lUl8TmsDiPDw for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83BCD1A700F for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81163203AA; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:42:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 35EE863A21; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:34:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2F3637F4; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:34:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Dave Cridland <>
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: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:34:44 -0500
Message-ID: <>
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: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:34:50 -0000

Dave Cridland <> 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, 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  [ 
]        |   ruby on rails    [