Re: Updating BCP 10 -- round two

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I think that moving the qualification rules out of the RFC is a recipe 
for trouble.  Yes, having them in there means we have to go to more 
trouble if we want to change them.  But having them outside means that 
the leadership has more control than we want.  Changing slowly is a 
benefit in my book for this situation.

As for the details of remaining eligible, I think that the problem for 
me is finding a good balance among the constraints of well defined and 
observable, relevant to understanding the community, and indicative of 
caring about the community.  And none of the criteria we have ever found 
directly include our actual goal as a community of improving the 
Internet for everyone (which is probably not solvable, but struck me as 
I was writing the constraints.)

Yours,
Joel

On 2/11/15 1:50 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > In theory the idea of trying to recognize a broader class of sufficiently
>      > involved participants sounds good.
>
> okay.
>
>      > The details did not seem to work for me, but I am happy to wait and see the
>      > next version of a specific proposal.
>
> Is it for the formula for remaining eligible, or was it the specific things
> that constitute a "contribution"?
>
> Do you think that the things which are a "contribution" should be maintained
> outside of BCP10 in some way?
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>   -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>