Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 17 February 2015 21:16 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 F09481A90BC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 S9zjB5xmZXGt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com (mail-we0-f169.google.com [74.125.82.169]) (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 2C0A21A90B5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wesw55 with SMTP id w55so927200wes.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:33 -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=dEj4aNheH7KVPeOgb4yW4YVsUp4eGoiD4JqzhBXnbt0=; b=wqoE6mfwMtwfyLSQOPPIowvxTbBSp3urLUDPtkWMsiE9bfZv0bz7sQdCr9fLFvgVRb X4v+/yszourUtgD/pKbTGZlIjXXkD5oibkUJdiSDbBzlmgRGi5rzqHxEbXtdhxqcXifl yi0Yftgp+PuS7o5DjVuekJMZ+QzZq1Iky1FJC5i0DJu9Jxov52gIwzwVqzPCwoOpH6PK t8qX2fKRfYzDLVle4K4KAqNT6LY1s0d9dbBts9EEeo+HuTy6MwVZB+OT3IY0+HoZ5vrK 7yZSFVUFUxw9YEXD3rOMRRbTxnRipXgHGqyh5c4+MssOqXNCKhItWYZ2+8kj1ij+cMrz R8fQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.211.235 with SMTP id nf11mr57356827wic.52.1424207792949; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.179.146 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54DE3E1C.6060105@gmail.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> <732CCD31-0F13-472F-9825-C5F5D650C41B@vigilsec.com> <2457EE06-4960-40B5-AF10-2EDFBF18B2B6@nominum.com> <7C601AA4-55C4-43FE-B2FE-1D22BD73F166@vigilsec.com> <CAKHUCzyJ62hVyJVVLuL5-nXx_i5VO2cW3LA6R1sdZbDHxoY_Tw@mail.gmail.com> <43ADF7ED-6A42-4097-8FFA-5DA0FC21D07A@vigilsec.com> <CAKHUCzyfB+GhNqmDhrzki4tVn0faMLyt_cqgeHFcQL2b5pkkAQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DE3E1C.6060105@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwY_=yN_ybqnvMC-A2BriQy9E6=4shrcbVtMUFbSZMNm7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3891095cf9e050f4f379a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Lh8HfoK9fK-xzgbSIxIymCDYgiE>
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: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:16:44 -0000

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> On 2/13/15 8:44 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > Moreover, if you accept that the word "culture" is effectively
> > indistinguishable to outsiders from the term "status quo" (though the
> > intent is obviously different), it's really quite revealing. All this
> > "preserving the culture" talk comes out in an entirely different light.
>
> I think this is a really important comment.  I mean,
> *really* important comment.
>

Bringing us back to the draft under discussion:

It sounds to me like our policies and tools around remote participation
haven't evolved yet to the point where we can set down some serious NomCom
eligibility criteria different from what's there now.  By that I'm not in
any way saying that these aren't important things to sort out, just that
it's not possible at the moment to come to consensus on what exact changes
we should make.

I suppose another way to look at that is: I have no idea what to write in
terms of replacement text for the current Section 4.14 of BCP 10 that
reflects a consensus here.  Does anyone else want to take a stab at it?

-MSK