Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sun, 11 January 2015 06:01 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 2B2B21A1AEB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:01:28 -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 okOV-m62uKxk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:01:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1F051A1AEA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:01:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (unknown [49.149.169.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04751180155B; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 07:01:20 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54B211A0.4060508@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 14:01:04 +0800
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org, Michael Richardson <mcr+nomcom@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <C16511B20BECBD8B66C19316@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <2280.1420933074@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <2280.1420933074@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PxmsCQqTsFPUTdmwEkNwEcbEv4M>
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: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 06:01:28 -0000

Michael,

On 2015-01-11 07:37, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Note: it is really impossible at this stage of remote attendance for nomcom
>        to operate with more than 1 remote selecting member.  In effect, all
>        of the interviewers really have got to be at the Third Meeting in
>        person. (And it's not just about technology, it's also about time
>        zones and informal dinners, and all the other things that our
>        technology fails at.)
>        So the person who is always remote, makes a very poor nomcom member.

I made a similar comment.

I guess that remote participation to be eligible to serve on the
NomCom is not that contentious, even though I don't see how we
could establish that the remote participation is at a sufficient
level.

On the hand being remote while serving on the NomCom I do not see
as acceptable; modulo that s-t happens and NomCOm memebers can't
travel. The strong expectation should be that NomCom members should
participate in the IETF meetings during the their NomCom term.

/Loa

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64