Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 11 February 2015 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 BA4DA1A888A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:43:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 vf-_Cod7o64a for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:43:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C91631A88C6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:43:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (unknown [49.149.201.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A444918013E4; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:43:40 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54DB78A1.5020407@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:43:29 +0800
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <04AED0595DF62A6F1013479D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54DB5CBE.3070502@dcrocker.net> <54DB66A0.1050006@pi.nu> <BE226640-1857-4232-9D4F-78445D82776A@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <BE226640-1857-4232-9D4F-78445D82776A@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Z7SxJA7HtN9c4eT6kRV5aL4A5vM>
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, 11 Feb 2015 15:43:49 -0000

Ted,

On 2015-02-11 22:35, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
>> I guess I'm old-time minded here, what is wrong with 3 meetings out
>> of 5, and if you want co-authored document.
>
> The main issue with three out of five is that it discriminates against people who can't attend that often but are actively involved in the IETF.   E.g., you have kids, or you have a family member with an illness who needs care, so you stay home for a year, and suddenly you're disenfranchised, even though you were actively involved in the IETF that whole time.
>

Well a nice try - do we have hard figures? Every rule discriminates
against someone, some of those people I want to discriminate against
others I don't want to discriminate against.

Let us say that we have 1200 attendees per meeting, the group you are
talking is 1% of the 1200, we are talking about 12 people.

But this could be calculated, go back 15-20 meetings and see how many
has been disenfranchised by a 3 out of 5 rule. ANd after that picked
uo a regular attendance. If it is in the order of 10 I think the
improvement we see in NomCom would be worth it. If we are talking
several times that number we have a problem with such a rule.

>>> As for Loa's question about why someone who hasn't done real IETF work
>>> would want to volunteer, the answer is politics and/or ego.  They or
>>> their company might want to hold sway over nomcom or the person might
>>> just want to add this to their resume.
>>
>> With due respect - I don't think this is how it work, do we have any
>> running code? Our rules so far has not stopped anyone form paying and
>> register, sit at the back of a a couple of wg meetings and three IETF
>> meetings later drop his/her name into the hat. But has it happened?
>
> The operation of each nomcom are pretty opaque to those who are not on it.   For those who have interacted with a nomcom as candidates, such an impression might exist.   It's possible that nomcom liaisons or chairs could speak to this.   However, since nomcom proceedings are supposed to be confidential, I don't know how much they could really say.   Because these properties of the nomcom are intentional and useful, it does make sense to be particularly careful about how nomcom eligibility is determined and not just trust to peoples' good natures.
>

Sorry I was not talking about the operations of the NomCom, but how
many drones we have in the pool. Looking at a few of the last pools
(the +100) I dare say that the figure is low, if we regardless of that
have problems in the NomCom operations no rule whatsoever will help.

/Loa

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64