Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 18 February 2015 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 D21DF1A00FD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:19:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 2tV3zRdr0pGi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 254711A00E6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1YOA9g-000NOh-2T; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:19:28 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:19:23 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
Message-ID: <6F8FA4690E3CB06C18DD22C6@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <tslsie4rz9k.fsf@mit.edu>
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> <54DE3E1C.6060105@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwY_=yN_ybqnvMC-A2BriQy9E6=4shrcbVtMUFbSZMNm7Q@mail.gmail.com> <tslsie4rz9k.fsf@mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UnQ_x6mzCtF43xOTklxvT7lQ3_w>
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: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:19:35 -0000

--On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 16:42 -0500 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> wrote:

> I actually think the discussion is still ongoing, and I I'm
> unsure that all the threads have really resolved.
> Let me try and summarize bits of the discussion I've seen:
>...
> So, I think we're left with a number of questions:

I generally agree with Sam's summary; let me add two questions
to his four:

(5)  Independent of Nomcom eligibility issues, do we need to be
explicit that those who volunteer to serve are making a
commitment to be physically present for specific meetings during
their term and, if so, which meetings?

(6) Whatever Nomcom eligibility requirements emerge from this
process, are they appropriate for all of the other things for
which we use Nomcom eligibility as a surrogate for
"participating adequately to do whatever this is"?  
 
> In conclusion, I think we've had a good wide-ranging
> discussion here, but I think it's time for the doc shepherd
> (not someone writing text, but someone chairing the
> discussion) to actually come along and chair.

+1

     john