Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <> Sat, 10 January 2015 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FBE1A886C for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 07:59:18 -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 b6jF6JKCmXWR for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 07:59:16 -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 5B10B1A886A for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 07:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A68052002A for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:04:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id B26F5637FE; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 10:59:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEA563745 for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 10:59:13 -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: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 10:59:13 -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: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:59:19 -0000

Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
    > On 09/01/15 19:03, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> So I would keep the 3/5 in-person meetings to *become* nomcom
    >> eligible.
    >> Once eligible, the rules for remaining eligible would be different.

    > I like that.

    > Given that remote participation is likely to continue changing and
    > hopefully improving in the coming years, if we do go down this road I
    > think it'd be good to figure some way to allow the rules for continued
    > eligibility to be changed without having to update the BCP. That could
    > be a task given to the IESG or someone other I* group or the current
    > nomcom could set the rule for the next. I don't care which of those,
    > but maybe the last would be best, as nomcom members may know best
    > what's needed, (though some form of appeal against a nomcom getting
    > themselves all back next year would be needed:-)

That's why I wrote "contribution" --- we could imagine some system of points,
with the datatracker being the scoreboard, but I'm not clear that we need an
particularly complex system or overly restrictive system.

    > Also, if we go there then I'd prefer that we apply that new rule
    > retrospectively as well so folks who were ever nomcom eligible could
    > "re-establish" that via participation any time.  (Unless that caused
    > some tooling problem in checking eligibility after someone volunteers.)

Perhaps one can become ineligible without loosing eligibility for a period
of time... we could have a long integration time...

But, if one totally looses eligibility, then the reason why I think one has
to do more attendance in person is because things *do* change over
time. 3-step vs 2-step.  Creation of IAOC.  Use of jabber+streamed mp3 vs
meetecho vs using multicast and vat.  The rise of webrtc... How much of this
matters to the nomcom, is unclear; but one definitely gets more
cross-polination by being in the hallway, than by being in the hallway chat.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]        |   ruby on rails    [