Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 12 February 2015 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656191A1A59 for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:15:49 -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 zqN62jGZdaaJ for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:15:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7939A1A00FA for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:15:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E481D203CD; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:23:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id AD0A463A21; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:15:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71CE263A1F; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:15:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Joel Halpern <>
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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:15:43 -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 21:15:49 -0000

Joel Halpern <> 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 <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-