Re: Qualifying for NomCom

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 08 April 2016 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A9712D772 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
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 autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 nbPS274d7_Uh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x229.google.com (mail-vk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]) (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 0BFCC12D84C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id k1so141824157vkb.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IquSch+KId6kPXbN19TOFCSEcU26e9LBN1hWgGIAupM=; b=TaFFTpJw67t4Eq2Sxh/wNT8J0ZnFZQjHNbW2RNBtuNb5t1a7GmWBii1fvxR1ZI0h2U p581GYqgefK9D+cc8Gg+KgrTOP5nLu2ZTfrICzVB5iZ/TqTR4Vg3LOCxB8anj8gDaQC4 tSG2xE2tKIejydKhpI8RnhGZMz59pJPzumPdR9DQRZ58NnmJAEXfxc6u7qbEEetz7bk6 Rt5iq0qpj+KZm6ZAs1nT14dI72OAy7Oc+zL3FWNhs1bFkzQVh0BwuK/NQYLtgKYKyaPK yVrKo6eUA4+9XzDndumwpSJjpgY0x/6JSxdANB7BgfCmSK6nKBC6wv3A3qwj2rWP+xVd i+xQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IquSch+KId6kPXbN19TOFCSEcU26e9LBN1hWgGIAupM=; b=IIq48pkJDzwfglWBZVoJzA0a0+rO2VFqvrl18TgxO04+lmEx0E4TEe5kv7q0yGv0KH 7Wwqur4fEbUeVs2m5a5jTz0oViz+HFDHT4wsKgwcvPfmx1jzQnk4fKJz0a5wJ1P3YEvX l9DuDcoAHrMlZJT+KRlPfPv/MiaUOCssCXs1GddINGS/yfKlxQ+utZzJI8kvUNRCGx4L kP8Xy9x9SghcX1CTpHdNtR2je8+lmkCbWPL+43Lu0cDgBPKXOu/XNliEI88MFVsuenpy VcmHvm19ffIZ9QZWgS3c6ffeVCpEd/uDDca8zF6nHMZBiM1/+kHT/h0vwjN6aY5n5Czl Aldw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLTrJ/DAxgIw63XVCd46GDepRE3s45/yO05djhdZf0rxJHGhsN+xQV1dGos5JgsgDiMerrv6t8ffv6Jjw==
X-Received: by 10.159.33.141 with SMTP id 13mr4474117uac.57.1460128760978; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwY0FuDp5=RMFEhUMtkK=XNDxX2dogvVY7+OSy88jrrvOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=SYpo-CiHoc07Ukb04Kb1LGV2=BPPyRLUsaqyLM9Hbwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbhYRqw7fXHzYY0=W-CpmeHeDdaZx3z2Qg0cA2aMrmVwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nqmC7NJyg2M6Na8vUj8T-qObO-1gHFEXZzrobb3oOQhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZHGa5OvSmZ=bTd6AWchsm4r=QaJn2nPqD+YjeWPmH9pA@mail.gmail.com> <24691.1460062367@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <5706CC94.3080804@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYvCpL9wwHL0E33HRbMvcckpad=gV-VYgAomJpCdiSrpg@mail.gmail.com> <5E36120B-6D4E-4C0D-9905-2C698455D395@att.com> <CAL0qLwak6GRDYAcYqdOewoSmRj6DP5ptQKjqXkOedBaHcKC7WA@mail.gmail.com> <60B61524-EFF7-4489-A0C7-AA4A139FEF6C@att.com> <CAL0qLwYDW_zwfdr4-2=r0vt2Cb1wNFm+-aog0Wubu+8PbaYWEw@mail.gmail.com> <6012C604-0922-4582-A505-F7934B5FD903@att.com> <23201.1460124058@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CAPt1N1=VL4AUUJC2fdm-YV33kpHhzd54t3Dx0YBh7q0-=RV1Vw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=VL4AUUJC2fdm-YV33kpHhzd54t3Dx0YBh7q0-=RV1Vw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:19:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaepirx=HRc3yxW6TAFrwGGETmT8VGKUybYoUBh=ckPCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113dfcea1fe3cf052ffab854
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RfMvPzwI3-oUyL7YKS6DkgFGG20>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 08 Apr 2016 15:19:28 -0000

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016, 11:08 Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> There are some issues here.   First, who can challenge a nomcom
> volunteer's elegibility?
>

Anyone, I think. RFC7437 talks about it.

  Second, what process is followed if their eligibility is challenged?
>

I think that's unspecified; the Chair just has to resolve the issue
somehow.

  This actually seems a lot harder than some of the other proposals that
> were put forth, which simply extended eligibility of the same type to more
> IETF participants, rather than creating two classes of IETF participants.
>

Anything more specific seems to create a lot of burden for the a chair who
has to manually vet every applicant in terms of their contributions (which,
I bet, I'd at least as painful as determining consensus on something), and
it can introduce bias. Putting that burden on the community instead seems a
better approach.

-MSK