Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Nico Williams <> Mon, 12 January 2015 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05811ACD19 for <>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:52:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q5Xhy0YLMNWV for <>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:52:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAE711ACD18 for <>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCB8360075; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:52:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to;; bh=IaWJI2llm2mAd4 Z9s1ykTvBQVxY=; b=WMAqYD6IUDN2JOBM2QSfHWOkWr42XtoNqFizwYd8HNA/pF fH8hAjn35UjvEzI1CjWz2aKP9UGHGYA22euaemcfuyEzyNI6Pv2xP1QpFbRg0Aah qiTFSxU//gA46CKpP/SeS2sn1FCjYT2emzICOa3BQWaJ/DXKK+LrdXZi9mcUA=
Received: from localhost ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 83FC036006B; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:52:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:52:18 -0600
From: Nico Williams <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
Message-ID: <20150112175216.GL16323@localhost>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:52:22 -0000

On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:03:36PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> So I would keep the 3/5 in-person meetings to *become* nomcom 
> eligible.  

This would be wonderful.  Should this eligibility decay?  For example, I
am probably eligible (to be eligible) by this standard, but it's been a
long time since I attended 3/5 (if I ever did; I'm not sure and I'm not
going to go look it up).

> Once eligible, the rules for remaining eligible would be different.
> I would propose something like having *contributed* to at least two
> meetings in the past four.  We could come up with complex or simple


Having attended at least one (not just with a day pass) of the past
three meetings seems important: so the NOMCOM members have an idea of
who is who, and 1/3 seems feasible for most participants.  Remote
participation is nice and all (it's mostly my mode of participation
lately), but it's not necessarily enough.

When visa or other issues make 1/3 difficult for some participants then
it could be made 1/4.

> rules on what it means to contribute, we could automated it, and
> we can discuss all the ways that various rules could be gamed.
> My ideas for contribution would include:
>   0) attend the meeting in person.
>   1) be a document shepherd or working group chair on a document
>      that entered AUTH48.
>   2) be the document uploader (pressed submit) on a document that
>      was scheduled into a WG session. (A document authors that has
>      never been to a meeting would never have become eligible. If
>      document authors want to rotate who submits, that actually
>      seems like a good idea if it keeps their hand in, as I've had to almost
>      stalk some co-authors during AUTH48 who seem to have fallen off the
>      planet) 
>   3) opened a ticket on a document that was scheduled into a WG session.
>   4) scribed for the I* telechats.

Yes, except as to (4): scribing often means *just* that; scribes often
fail to grasp what they are scribing.  (There have been studies about
how typing notes during lectures is much worse than writing notes
long-hand, or short-hand even.  I believe these are likely correct and
apply to scribing IETF meetings too.)

> Note that I have avoided counting "remote attendance" activities
> specifically, because that would require us to figure out who attended
> and register them, etc. and I don't think we are ready for that yet.