Re: Updating BCP 10 -- round two

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 35FDC1A1B28 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:46:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 GE_JoKqfgc7C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 721D41A024E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B0E1BC20AA; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:46:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-134-12.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.134.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DE591BC20A5; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:46:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DBB18B.1020901@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:46:19 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- round two
References: <CAL0qLwbGG2=VgmUWEE6W3D+0qennThqnCP85X0Q85i94meu68g@mail.gmail.com> <6409.1423672454@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYobxBDuE0WG2t+kviGm=Wwj3RJqVh7y0yHH0uX7KWVfQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DB8709.1050405@joelhalpern.com> <3777.1423680657@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <3777.1423680657@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_Mhqxpr-0HyFlURlRK6SnqUQGcU>
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 19:46:29 -0000

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 <jmh@joelhalpern.com> 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 <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>   -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>