Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 11 February 2015 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 830BD1A1BCC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:29:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 5s1JUtZZVQI9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:29:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAA931A1B27 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:29:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDE2203CD; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:36:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 26DA663A21; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:29:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C44A637F4; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:29:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <CABmDk8na6rvOkSUHX+q3zs5cUVsvL6R7DkK-cs7rNhB6WeaS-A@mail.gmail.com>
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> <13061.1423674140@sandelman.ca> <CABmDk8mMPa4RVfiJa8BrY5A0_F+oWXgetMp_Rq9qS-K=2Y8Xow@mail.gmail.com> <5135.1423681014@sandelman.ca> <CABmDk8na6rvOkSUHX+q3zs5cUVsvL6R7DkK-cs7rNhB6WeaS-A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:29:11 -0500
Message-ID: <24484.1423686551@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c53c6gtiz_AXK_tinux0OuXFhZs>
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 20:29:17 -0000

Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
    > they just aren't investing the time.  I think it would also be possible for
    > the 11th to participate
    > in discussions, provide input, etc. and just not vote.  Although, I think

I agree.
The other liasons to the process are doing this at the request of their
respective organizations...

    > particular nomcom, as is a number of other decisions in terms of how
    > engaged anyone that isn't a
    > voting member is in the process - e.g., some nomcoms actually have the past
    > chair in interviews.

I made use of all of the liasons and past-chair as observers.

    > As chair, I didn't even feel it was a necessity for me to be involved in
    > all interviews.  I did sit
    > in on some where we did not have sufficient voting members available.

The same for me; I tried to sit through at least the first interview for each
time I had a "green" lead person... but I certainly didn't feel I had to be
there the whole time.    In fact, I got rather giddy with (parental?)
satisfaction as I found that the nomcom members were completely exceeding my
expectations in the way they were conducting the interviews.

So, the question is: should the selection of a spare, and the process (that
they be treated as a non-selection-voting observer) be written into BCP10?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-