Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 31 July 2012 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D0F21F88EB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aTAJ3lCGSdkh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D5921F87F7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sm-THINK.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6VMgwOe007313; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1343774585; bh=Qg5hpUInztHM/EC+/q8x8XfKTmzzYXiNs6JI6UrfqnU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=ENJ5Ml5AS4yvM13iJ1Ah05mY++wXMHF8aINNoon1+DLDlR+6N408z3PM4GJfjMfQW 8cmVh8zxE5A+yLyuVo2FGWPpw8xZwqvBKxeOZLsIfbRDm2ZGPxYelDl7sC4WUCSdD1 mK1ccAIiqfG/DEnbHG6YGw7jHF6xSCIxs/yFDSWE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1343774585; i=@resistor.net; bh=Qg5hpUInztHM/EC+/q8x8XfKTmzzYXiNs6JI6UrfqnU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=WsuRO/BIAoN8YuK3LBR3IF3CoVTvcji8rCjalVfCCqhOj1NRRXuvNKCPfqc7y6742 lQeqCr0zeQUhxBxV0ABYD1J1BcOKZXC2luN8FDxpTM5rhyKjZ4lxAke1CVqM3TpYNh rseKqUVTdkmv/7HmFhgHYQDh2BWMpGFqTELz0Ydo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120731152716.088ab5d0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:42:04 -0700
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:43:11 -0000

Hi John,
At 05:48 AM 7/31/2012, John C Klensin wrote:
>Much of this is about appearances.   For example, I would hope
>that sitting ADs would have better sense than to volunteer for
>the Nomcom even if the rules technically permitted that.  Nor

Yes.

>would I expect Secretariat staff to volunteer (as far as I know,
>none ever has despite the current rules apparently permitting

Yes.

The IETF usually says that people participate as individuals.  It is 
up to each individual to see whether it is appropriate to volunteer 
for NomCom if there is possible conflict of interest.  RFC 3777 
discusses about stacking up the selection process (see primary 
affiliation) but it does get into other details which can influence 
the selection process.  If the objective is to avoid self-selection, 
one could question the process for the appointment of the NomCom Chair.

Regards,
-sm