Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 11 February 2015 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929C81A6EDB for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:23:27 -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 7ZcjvmJNpksq for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:23:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5AA21A1F70 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:23:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27596203CD; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:30:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id C74FE63A21; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:23:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2114637F4; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:23:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Michael StJohns <>
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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:23:12 -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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:23:27 -0000

On this topic, I asked the secretariat:

> Putting aside the problems of different emails used to register,  is it a
> simple query against the registration database (which I think is not in
> anyway connected to the datatracker), to determine how many people are
> nomcom eligible at a given time?  (I don't care who they are)

> Can this run from a historical point of view?

> Regardless, if we can run this, could we run it three times a year (after
> each meeting), and capture that data?

Michael StJohns <> wrote:
    > At 10:43 AM 2/11/2015, Loa Andersson 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.
    >> Sorry I was not talking about the operations of the NomCom, but how
    >> many drones we have in the pool. Looking at a few of the last pools
    >> (the +100) I dare say that the figure is low, if we regardless of that
    >> have problems in the NomCom operations no rule whatsoever will help.

    > It would be interesting to take a look at the "large company" pool volunteers over say the past 20 years and figure out a way of giving them an activity factor (e.g. attendee vs contributor) - but finding an objective scale that we could all agree with to assign such activity factor would be difficult.

    > I say large company because about 55-60% (rough number - just from scanning) or so of the voting members of the Nomcoms over the last 20 years appear have come from companies with large numbers of attendees at the IETF - said companies tending to be what I think of as "big".

    > The other number to look at might be the number of attendees (percentage wise) per company per meeting vs number of volunteers (percentage wise) per company per nomcom.  All things being equal I would expect those percentages to be close to identical.  I would expect where the nomcom volunteer percentage exceeds the attendee percentage to maybe be indicative of a desire by the company to place members on the Nomcom.

    > Later, Mike

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-