Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 09 January 2015 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 09CBB1A9250 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:28:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 SaCQHDAuZ0Bf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:28:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42F181A924E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:28:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id eu11so20157528pac.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=04a6gL8FM8/rrx9dgSTwXQgEWXGgZ5qWZ6JHuLwqbC0=; b=Z2hRXD+gVmmjqKlwSPaEwshrPO2zo7U8QfDhWhP2kHFgVnY37AZmq/5k3CBcbB1iU9 LIr9r75fBbSk4sY+KL+msH/zL22S+TWpJQbCziuNCVXYpqmTuqjUanb1ri+pMgzvHdR5 nAoI5/5xgPvne8nMDQ1Lo8C2B1Was5BDikUzw4o2iLdZTnnKlAIgfDkg9R+nDFBm3byo pkLmHqqsGd5tIYoOMjeMWJX82jui6cjHIXxkYkLvqaKHmBhwGNLIInoWbM774XM8bdQK b6oqSKOQKwS154GcJc7izFIzEIA0zxDcNCu//Ipp+s2gjNiZlPYILl+UQBdGvtA/bSPj f3lw==
X-Received: by 10.66.166.171 with SMTP id zh11mr26057363pab.85.1420831695459; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:5167:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:5167:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z14sm7782366pdl.82.2015.01.09.11.28.12 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 09 Jan 2015 11:28:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54B02BE9.5080507@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 08:28:41 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom
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> <32639.1420827424@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <32639.1420827424@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/W1ROgZ5RGnVM16acQPIlqz71cm8>
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 19:28:18 -0000

On 10/01/2015 07:17, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> 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.

I would hope so. I think the problem area is more where the Nomcom
is trying to understand details of group interaction when a possibly
unfair negative comment has been made. If that is not something where
we expect the liaisons to be a source of input, that probably needs to
be made clear. As I said, currently the only prohibition on liaisons
is the one sentence about not voting on candidates. If there are to
be other restrictions, they should be written down IMHO.

   Brian
>