Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jck.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 D43D61A89B9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:30:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 NnD9ux1M7xR6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:30:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 079601A899C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:30:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john@jck.com>) id 1YLibs-0000Pj-2V; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:30:28 -0500
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:30:22 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
Message-ID: <ADFCF096C3D41BB57971B052@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <BE226640-1857-4232-9D4F-78445D82776A@nominum.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <04AED0595DF62A6F1013479D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54DB5CBE.3070502@dcrocker.net> <54DB66A0.1050006@pi.nu> <BE226640-1857-4232-9D4F-78445D82776A@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IyLJFbUXTjM5R50mVRoKxD-tgus>
Cc: "dcrocker@bbiw.net >> Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, 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 01:30:42 -0000


--On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 09:35 -0500 Ted Lemon
<Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> The operation of each nomcom are pretty opaque to those who
> are not on it.   For those who have interacted with a nomcom
> as candidates, such an impression might exist.   It's possible
> that nomcom liaisons or chairs could speak to this.   However,
> since nomcom proceedings are supposed to be confidential, I
> don't know how much they could really say.   Because these
> properties of the nomcom are intentional and useful, it does
> make sense to be particularly careful about how nomcom
> eligibility is determined and not just trust to peoples' good
> natures.

+1

And, again, unless we start changing other things, we really
aren't just talking about the Nomcom.  We use Nomcom eligibility
for some other things where "disenfranchised" is more direct
than being ineligible to volunteer for a pool from which Nomcom
members are selected at random.

    john