Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 8BB081A1A12 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:20:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 APUbAIh9-SnV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A287C1A00FA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88AC11C0660; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:20:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-135-240.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE1F41C0497; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:20:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DD1903.7090003@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:20:03 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
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> <54DBD71C.20101@joelhalpern.com> <26803.1423772214@sandelman.ca> <54DD139B.2010602@joelhalpern.com> <7398.1423775743@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <7398.1423775743@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Rxwe5aZ3RA-TOa-58-9uCxto7DA>
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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:20:20 -0000

With regard to the proposal, the original proposal was sufficiently far 
back in the thread, and there ere enough ideas about modifying it, that 
I am not sure I can construct exactly what you intended.  Your recent 
message in this regard in which you restated the general shape helped. 
I have seen some of the ideas for "contribution" and some discussion of 
same, but ...

being able to look at real data would definitely help.  I understand 
that the lack is not your doing.  And the secretariat and tools team 
folks have other things on their plate.  Just hard to judge.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/12/15 4:15 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>      > I really don't think that relaxing nomcom membership rules is an
>      > effective way to address our (very real) leadership diversity
>      > issue. That being said diversity is clearly of value for the nomcom
>      > itself, in addition to the value for our leadership bodies.  I have no
>      > idea whether the proposed rules would actually qualify a more diverse
>      > set of people. Larger, yes.  More diverse?  Maybe.  But given that all
>      > of these rules are very rough approximations for what we need, I am
>      > concerned that relaxing them without sufficient relationship to our
>      > needs has a too high a probability of making things worse in important
>      > ways.
>
> If we can find a way to get the registration database imported into the
> datatracker, that would permit one to run some experiments.  We need that
> data, because we need to know if someone is 3/5 qualified already.
>
>      > All of which is why I want to see a specific proposal.  And why I have
>      > said that in the abstract I would like to see improvement.
>
> I have written some specific ideas (close to, but not specific wording for
> BCP10) on this thread.  If that was insufficient for you to evaluate
> conceptually (parameters can be tweaked); can you tell me in what form you
> think it needs to be presented?
>
> Or is this really a continuation of the above paragraph; and really you are
> saying you'd like to be able apply the process against real data, and observe
> the results?  (running code)
>