Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 18 February 2015 01:35 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 16D661A87C8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:35:41 -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 iwuU0pd0DHZ2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:35:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B66111A87BE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:35:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F73203C9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:43:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 2F45A63A21; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:35:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18019637F5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:35:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwY_=yN_ybqnvMC-A2BriQy9E6=4shrcbVtMUFbSZMNm7Q@mail.gmail.com>
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>
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: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:35:37 -0500
Message-ID: <28435.1424223337@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/V1CNtYHWjx9gJVCRcMFCdnHKSVY>
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 01:35:41 -0000

Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>; wrote:
    > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Melinda Shore
    > <melinda.shore@gmail.com>; wrote:

    >> On 2/13/15 8:44 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > Moreover, if you accept
    >> that the word "culture" is effectively > indistinguishable to
    >> outsiders from the term "status quo" (though the > intent is obviously
    >> different), it's really quite revealing. All this > "preserving the
    >> culture" talk comes out in an entirely different light.
    >>
    >> I think this is a really important comment.  I mean, *really*
    >> important comment.
    >>

    > Bringing us back to the draft under discussion:

    > It sounds to me like our policies and tools around remote participation
    > haven't evolved yet to the point where we can set down some serious
    > NomCom eligibility criteria different from what's there now.  By that
    > I'm not in any way saying that these aren't important things to sort
    > out, just that it's not possible at the moment to come to consensus on
    > what exact changes we should make.

    > I suppose another way to look at that is: I have no idea what to write
    > in terms of replacement text for the current Section 4.14 of BCP 10
    > that reflects a consensus here.  Does anyone else want to take a stab
    > at it?

I've been super-busy on a dozen fronts, but I've been reading every message
on this thread.  I don't know if it is urgent get this text done this week.

I might propose that we ask for a BOF; but an in-person discussion would be
self-selecting.  It might be that having a virtual interim meeting after
Dallas would make more sense.   What if we had some kind of remote attendee summit?

I don't think that the quality of the tools or the question of fee or not
should prevent us from considering if there is a way to change the manner in
which ones remains eligible.  As written, I don't think that Dave Cridland
would ever become eligible again (since that would still be 3/5), nor, I
think were he already eligible, that he'd remain so, because you still have
to attend 1 meeting/year to remain eligible.

{It has become clear to me in thinking about this, that we need to make sure
we figure out when we measure properly}



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