Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Joel Halpern <> Wed, 11 February 2015 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A781A6FEF for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:26:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y7fHBVqwZzSb for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:26:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4921A1A1A27 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:26:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2991BC861A; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:26:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DC441BC8623; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:26:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:26:36 -0500
From: Joel Halpern <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>, Michael Richardson <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:26:48 -0000

I am starting to sympathize with Mike.  What is our goal here.
Expanding the nomcom pool with folks who may be contributing but do not 
have visibility to how things are working does not seem to help us.

Given that most companies that appear to be trying to get a lot of 
nomcom members also send a varying range of people, and that much of the 
constraint on nomcom volunteering seems to be willingness, I do not see 
any indication that a larger available pool will reduce the proportion 
each of the 5 or so large companies offer up.

And while contributing is a good indicator of caring, it is an even 
worse indicator than attendance of having any visibility to the 
community or the management challenges, or any of the other criteria I 
think each of us have in our heads for good nomcom members.

To paraphrase my earlier note, if we can expand the set of qualified and 
highly suitable nomcom members (and get them to volunteer) that does 
seem desirable.  I am trying to relate the conditions to the goal.


On 2/11/15 5:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Michael Richardson
> < <>> wrote:
>     Assuming that you did not contribute for three years in anyway:
> Not three but four, right?
>         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.
> (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.
> 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.
> -MSK