Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 4B6E11A1A13 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:49:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 2Z6ggiEkKR9L for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:49:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FABF1A036A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:49:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45470DA0292 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:49:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0071453E084; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:49:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:49:31 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <54DB78A1.5020407@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:49:28 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <F8C70B44-D9CB-4C44-8940-4E3847CE7AFF@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> <54DB78A1.5020407@pi.nu>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/O0nLELTwtsNP-PUg9kgdTvZ-bCw>
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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:49:34 -0000

On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>; wrote:
> Let us say that we have 1200 attendees per meeting, the group you are
> talking is 1% of the 1200, we are talking about 12 people.

I suspect that what you will find is that of the remote attendees, zero are there to read email in a meeting room.   So I think this 1% figure you've pulled out of your hat is probably not a good one to use: it's likely that a regular remote attendee is very involved in the IETF.

For my own part, now that I'm no longer an AD as of March, I'm seriously questioning whether I want to keep flying to IETF meetings every time.   It's a huge carbon footprint, expensive for my company, and really disruptive to my life.   IETF has been getting better and better at supporting remote attendees.   I would love to be able to skip a couple of IETFs a year, and the nomcom eligibility requirement is a major impediment to being able to do that in good conscience.

(And yes, I recognize that if I wound up on nomcom, attendance during that period would not be optional.)