Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 09 January 2015 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 900E11A6FCB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:17:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s2Igb1If04zm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:17:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCA0B1A009E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B30203AA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:22:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 0904E637FE; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:17:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E6B637EA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:17:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom
In-Reply-To: <07F5F42A-1BEA-410D-B280-4925664E2E29@cs.georgetown.edu>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <D54C3DE17A3E5C7B032F6FB4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <BC1A05C1-6198-4325-8F46-8E5AB9D0DFCF@cs.georgetown.edu> <20038FAABC32083290783A97@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <F3782236-1AF7-4F9C-8A15-2F9CC8BC8795@cs.georgetown.edu> <54AED784.2070402@gmail.com> <07F5F42A-1BEA-410D-B280-4925664E2E29@cs.georgetown.edu>
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: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:17:04 -0500
Message-ID: <32639.1420827424@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Rx11KCrVXp0r49jf85aupNOFRR4>
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, 09 Jan 2015 18:17:14 -0000

Eric Burger <eburger@cs.georgetown.edu>; wrote:
    > Here is a hypothetical that gives the answer. The nomcom has got
    > feedback that nominee X has been consistently obstructive in resolving
    > disputes and is always unwilling to compromise. Nomcom doesn't know
    > whether this is valid. Should <change>nomcom ask people in the
    > community</change> to comment?

    > My answer is Yes. As the liaison is part of the community, there is no
    > reason not to ask the liaison to comment,

And my experience is that the liason often does go to the datatracker, outside of the
call, and provides the same kind of feedback as anyone else.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>;, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-