Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 12 February 2015 03:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2C61A1BE8 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:10:44 -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 CzhJhNVokzCU for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:10:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F3C21A1BB7 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:10:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25189203CD; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:18:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 0B62D63A21; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:10:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F82637F4; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:10:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:10:37 -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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:10:44 -0000

Murray S. Kucherawy <> wrote:
    >> wrote/submitted no documents, never presented remotely in a meeting,
    >> etc.
    >> then at IETF97 (5 meetings after IETF92, assuming you attended that
    >> one),
    >> you would become ineligible, and you'd have to attend 3/5 again to
    >> become
    >> eligible.  You'd have to come to IETF104,105, and 106.

    > OK, so just to confirm:

    > (a) Attend 3/5 to become eligible.  That's easy to verify from the
    > records we keep; you either did or you didn't.

Agreed.  Recording that somewhere is actually useful for use with recall
processes that need nomcom eligible to sign.  Then people can actually find
out if they are on the list.

    > (b) For maintaining eligibility, we need to nail down how this gets
    > evaluated.  Is it something like this?

    > After attaining initial eligibility, eligibility is maintained by
    > "contributing" at least twice during every calendar four-year period.

I would write that one should contribute at least three times during every
calendar year, and say that that attendance counts.
To remain eligible, I had that one needed to attend once a year; it might be
worth making that some kind of sliding window of three.  While I am open to
rates of attendance less than 1/3, I don't think the community is.

The situation where we might like to think a bit about is where someone
attends meeting IETF92 (in March 2015), and then misses four meetings in a
row (contributing in other ways the whole time), attending IETF97 and
That's being away for 1.5 years: a difficult pregnancy (such as enforced bed
             rest), plus a year of infant that can't travel.

Just before IETF99, picking for nomcom 2017, one ought to be eligible,
provided that one never became in-eligible.

The question is, just prior to IETF96 (the one in Summer 2016), when the 2016
nomcom is picked, would one be eligible?  One hasn't attended in the past
three meetings, but a) did attend four meetings ago, b) intend to attend
IETF97.   I'd like to think that one could be eligible, but in the case, I
care more that the person doesn't get made in-eligible for 2017.

    > This is essentially a sliding window four years wide, during which
    > there must be
    > two recorded contributions for every consecutive four-year window in
    > order for eligibility to continue.

I'm confused how you came up with four years.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-