Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 09 January 2015 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 BAD551A1A75 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:00:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Yr4rnZ11yYYz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:00:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C6F1A01FA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:00:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6905D9A4020; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:00:42 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JrI2NX7LvsYu; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:00:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.2.101] (pool-173-79-205-14.washdc.fios.verizon.net [173.79.205.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DB89A4010; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:00:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:00:07 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CC67CA2F-43E5-4F48-8099-51F704950E28@vigilsec.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.4.1
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TqTwFXpkgQo1CO-Ky5FSTXdVweo>
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, 09 Jan 2015 23:00:54 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

There was a long discussion of Day Passes in 2010, and it lead to this IESG statement:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/nomcom-eligibility-and-day-passes.html

In my view, this was the right decision.  We need people that have been exposed to the IETF culture.

Russ


On Jan 9, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

> 
> I would like to change the nomcom eligibility criteria.
> SM has proposed some things awhile ago in:
>        draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-01
> 
> kept the current rules of 3/5, but added options where
> the "3rd" meeting could really be in the form either having
> been to a lot of meetings, or having used day-passes..
> 
> I don't think SM's proposal does the right thing.
> My concern is primarily about people who enter our culture,
> and then for some reason are unable to travel. (Could be health,
> could be inability to get VISAs, could be funding, could be children) 
> 
> So I would keep the 3/5 in-person meetings to *become* nomcom 
> eligible.  
> 
> Once eligible, the rules for remaining eligible would be different.
> I would propose something like having *contributed* to at least two
> meetings in the past four.  We could come up with complex or simple
> rules on what it means to contribute, we could automated it, and
> we can discuss all the ways that various rules could be gamed.
> My ideas for contribution would include:
>  0) attend the meeting in person.
>  1) be a document shepherd or working group chair on a document
>     that entered AUTH48.
>  2) be the document uploader (pressed submit) on a document that
>     was scheduled into a WG session. (A document authors that has
>     never been to a meeting would never have become eligible. If
>     document authors want to rotate who submits, that actually
>     seems like a good idea if it keeps their hand in, as I've had to almost
>     stalk some co-authors during AUTH48 who seem to have fallen off the
>     planet) 
>  3) opened a ticket on a document that was scheduled into a WG session.
>  4) scribed for the I* telechats.
> 
> Note that I have avoided counting "remote attendance" activities
> specifically, because that would require us to figure out who attended
> and register them, etc. and I don't think we are ready for that yet.
> 
> -- 
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [ 
> 	

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAlSwXXgACgkQiuTu0PWcEcujzwCeMR8jQ2DaD2sDzZh7wxKca9c/
A+EAnA66O9Ov2cGxuO/8xn1eu9v3u7GS
=wdx9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----