Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom

Eric Burger <eburger@cs.georgetown.edu> Thu, 08 January 2015 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mep27rym@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 1BD021A882E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:26:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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 4TeQ-jsti8lW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:26:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A94201A8AEA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id p6so3230972qcv.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 09:26:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=3c6TfpWZeiqaY6Yh7hIZn1tcLsMG8cMq+L1atI/81tY=; b=M+W5yENeevTP+5KHW+PS0+TnSn6tIOmMwmANCs1xk9Wo2bBA88YUKegJWfFnqaihKd bB1y0GsqCf9kqmwd4pokoo+OJ+SemHhbi9M4n+cPXpEfXAmmswOnu4fNPQts0liXNtGw +dYJLIC1gAj1DAu/fNqKzQzC8JKHjIAL4wNeB4PlyIoxGzesBSyFKTeW8Ds57YE06DYz YIZKSWF35mOluQfFC+pDWdBELHafkb+eWucOz3n3Pkbeko5qlGYWefJ9A8gAuslzVO8T 1a9CUf92y/pdBMyLFJkpmfIszZ5TGFT5pbxbRGZou4Nl7KWZRGYa8RI09+yef4qQT2ua Bgkg==
X-Received: by 10.224.103.195 with SMTP id l3mr6698335qao.38.1420737992968; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 09:26:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.22.6.156] ([12.21.1.100]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m9sm4549592qaz.15.2015.01.08.09.26.31 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Jan 2015 09:26:31 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Eric Burger <mep27rym@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AD7F85D2-CB1D-42EF-A29A-8C8DAF761806"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b4
From: Eric Burger <eburger@cs.georgetown.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20038FAABC32083290783A97@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:26:29 -0500
Message-Id: <F3782236-1AF7-4F9C-8A15-2F9CC8BC8795@cs.georgetown.edu>
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>
To: Klensin John <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XcNyR4C7VZgOlHgZetodwy9ppEA>
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: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:26:38 -0000

> On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:32 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> --On Thursday, January 08, 2015 11:08 -0500 Eric Burger
> <eburger@cs.georgetown.edu> wrote:
> 
>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:59 AM, John C Klensin
>> ....
> 
>> Likewise, no matter how legalistic we become, a person with an
>> agenda will have an agenda.
> 
> Unquestionably.  And, again, I don't want to see us attempt
> fine-grained rules in this area, only discussion and better
> calibration of community expectations than, e.g., the second you
> cite above provides.
> 
> For example and in the hope of being a bit less vague, I
> personally see no need for liaisons to sit in on candidate
> interviews, to see supposedly-confidential candidate
> questionnaires, to see community input about particular
> candidates, or to participate in Nomcom discussions or be
> exposed to correspondence about particular candidates or
> candidate choice rankings.  And I see some disadvantages to the
> quality and breadth of input the Nomcom is likely to receive to
> their doing so. Do you disagree?
> 
> best,
>    john

As serving on nomcom in a liaison role in the past, I have to *agree* with you 1,000%. The liaisons should have a voice in the needs of their respective home groups, but should not be deciding who nomcom serves up. That means they do not have a burning need to be in the weeds of per-candidate nomcom stuff.