Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 13 February 2015 18:56 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 85AC61A1A28 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:56:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 K1SsThHf6Pmq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:56:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (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 627C21A01EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:55:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id em10so14200195wid.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:55:57 -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=sjKaTpzuyipfvXPMLLL0YFnvxCleDxQXs5K+myMLDVI=; b=j+kKmQhWdYLNSd0A8xG3VtBOF8y9GANw2dcFxM0pSeR8DlhmFtmtcI0+VDfKTbKmaa pdsHL9gVqJ/E+wamLP8+q09CPy7hNfOHm47i1jTgwh1A3LlY8Gc8y1ZgWG2C06H4RXdD Myp/NgKal5dIkwT2ValdBlsq2TTNC6qxBjADCc1WJlys54N4lEQiky24+dOsbbnZIgjj o/M5RfSv2ao1PlHp1ps5+EOLlj9/2Qx+UDbjhPzZQ6T3JDWBByV+3InsAVM3blkVadf4 2ENLdNeVrPn/AKHI9q4PKJPCg6bICWQJWep31Mcyx9TBNF6QgWAKwDNON/GatuNfIKd6 UVsg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.185.68 with SMTP id fa4mr20747045wjc.111.1423853757483; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:55:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.179.146 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:55:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzyfB+GhNqmDhrzki4tVn0faMLyt_cqgeHFcQL2b5pkkAQ@mail.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>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:55:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYLuknVuY-n6R18_WxW=67+MaE8MZvWyhrGEhofEXLRwg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacb11e6d523b050efcc95d
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Qq-9_C68d34Wd6863cT0XMUDZ54>
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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:56:44 -0000

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> wrote:

> c) The "NomCom eligibility" rules govern essentially any say in the
> leadership of the IETF.
>

I disagree.  "Eligibility for NomCom" and "having a say in IETF leadership"
are not synonyms.

Your claim is right only if you presuppose that those who become selecting
members of the NomCom typically disregard the feedback they receive about
candidates and instead assert their own agendas.  I'd be comfortable
claiming that at least a large majority of the selecting members of the
last two NomComs, both of which included me, gave proper consideration to
feedback received from people in the community irrespective of who was
submitting the feedback or what their attendance or contributions were.

Remember, they're volunteers.  They volunteer to provide a service, which
is the donation of time to do interviews, participate in conference calls,
accept and sift through mountains of feedback, deliberate, argue, and
enforce their own propriety.  At least from my own experience, it's been
anything but a power play.

A sensible way of managing this change to avoid disruption would be to
> provide several distinct criteria for eligibility, and select from each
> pool proportionally, changing the proportions over time. So recall, for
> example, might need 15 meeting attendees and 5 people qualifying under
> active participation rules to initiate, gradually changing to emphasize
> active participation.
>

This might be a reasonable starting point.  What are your thoughts on
Michael's proposals for measuring active participation?

-MSK