Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 12 February 2015 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 656191A1A59 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:15:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zqN62jGZdaaJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:15:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7939A1A00FA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:15:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E481D203CD; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:23:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id AD0A463A21; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:15:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71CE263A1F; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:15:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <54DD139B.2010602@joelhalpern.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DBD71C.20101@joelhalpern.com> <26803.1423772214@sandelman.ca> <54DD139B.2010602@joelhalpern.com>
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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:15:43 -0500
Message-ID: <7398.1423775743@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HfoVXWsfjokKv49Owf8ZW4t5DzI>
Cc: ietf <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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:15:49 -0000

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
    > I really don't think that relaxing nomcom membership rules is an
    > effective way to address our (very real) leadership diversity
    > issue. That being said diversity is clearly of value for the nomcom
    > itself, in addition to the value for our leadership bodies.  I have no
    > idea whether the proposed rules would actually qualify a more diverse
    > set of people. Larger, yes.  More diverse?  Maybe.  But given that all
    > of these rules are very rough approximations for what we need, I am
    > concerned that relaxing them without sufficient relationship to our
    > needs has a too high a probability of making things worse in important
    > ways.

If we can find a way to get the registration database imported into the
datatracker, that would permit one to run some experiments.  We need that
data, because we need to know if someone is 3/5 qualified already.

    > All of which is why I want to see a specific proposal.  And why I have
    > said that in the abstract I would like to see improvement.

I have written some specific ideas (close to, but not specific wording for
BCP10) on this thread.  If that was insufficient for you to evaluate
conceptually (parameters can be tweaked); can you tell me in what form you
think it needs to be presented?

Or is this really a continuation of the above paragraph; and really you are
saying you'd like to be able apply the process against real data, and observe
the results?  (running code)

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-