Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A501A8547 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:54:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TqSAXO_5yHuK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 438A81A1A77 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id w55so1949759wes.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:54:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2QRtdWgM46pkz3PxenQU/rbhisPMet/grPRnaYRsTOc=; b=LurVZyBjm00/xn2a21SjlqjlJ7+MDBhc0xj3xxanyE+Gi079+DNy2U0WO5vbxwsjXa to4vJr8Zx6s0P6cv82kfT9tvvrwYkmXp21uukPb42rX2qZ6InTn5NBGeI7rDPqvw7v4x i5HxzUuff8rW7F2g7opc+/S7fpXrf2FNUN+kZcYAdztrkh/OJqgZs2ta5sYFAoIbY807 McHMt/EflzzeGNqR8By5rBM2Lbpk2iIvunxu8ldYa0o25/9iX9FMvK7ALHGsHBIoUFyA v9niaCZU8cLP99PtKr9+KMk0JjUbcp6ajb42uRmvHn0v8GG13K/fMGVa2fIgl3fJXWV/ jQ3Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.185.197 with SMTP id fe5mr26166807wjc.135.1423644892900; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.179.146 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:54:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAP8yD=sn-a9Y3muA8Z7Xjg+mV=qMQbmS8EEu6XmPc8RYe74cJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <54B02B51.1070308@cs.tcd.ie> <5237.1420905553@sandelman.ca> <20150110183324.5CED31A6F11@ietfa.amsl.com> <54B17DDB.3080005@gmail.com> <201501102231.t0AMV21b009190@colo4.roaringpenguin.com> <22671.1421006639@sandelman.ca> <CAP8yD=sn-a9Y3muA8Z7Xjg+mV=qMQbmS8EEu6XmPc8RYe74cJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:54:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbtODtzkS8Q2KmCBqndG-G8P3S-Kc0wcOMT=XZSRsBNfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc8f9e20b2d4050ecc283f
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GvSgnTlEwebCEGB8JzxvLF28M18>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:54:56 -0000

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I like Michael's original suggestion that there should be two meetings in
> the last five and if there is not a third, then meeting some other
> requirement, a choice of things like attended lots of past meetings, has a
> defined role in a wg, ...
>
> Others have noted this, but the two important goals of these criteria are:
>
> Has attained a (minimal)  level of familiarity with IETF
>
> Has a probability of attending in person for the Nomcom activities
>
> Michael has crystallized in other posts the fact that Nomcom really needs
> the in person time in order to work together, and IETF teally, critically
> needs full attendance if Nomcom during the meeting(s) with interviews,
> especially November, for the candidate interviews.
>
Having served on the last two NomComs, I have to say I agree with these
points, especially the in-person one.  NomCom would be pretty hard to do
remotely.  I know we're making great strides in remote participation in
working groups, but those are very open things while NomCom is not.
There's a lot of value in being available just walking around the hallways
when serving as a NomCom member, something that can't be done quite as
easily when you're far away.

-MSK