Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 13 February 2015 17:52 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 7F0D31A00E1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:52:07 -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 iY9F9L41U0vm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEF491A005F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F581C0873; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:52:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-135-240.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CEF5B1C059F; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:52:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DE39B1.9000507@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:51:45 -0500
From: Joel 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: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <732CCD31-0F13-472F-9825-C5F5D650C41B@vigilsec.com> <2457EE06-4960-40B5-AF10-2EDFBF18B2B6@nominum.com> <7C601AA4-55C4-43FE-B2FE-1D22BD73F166@vigilsec.com> <CAKHUCzyJ62hVyJVVLuL5-nXx_i5VO2cW3LA6R1sdZbDHxoY_Tw@mail.gmail.com> <43ADF7ED-6A42-4097-8FFA-5DA0FC21D07A@vigilsec.com> <CAKHUCzyfB+GhNqmDhrzki4tVn0faMLyt_cqgeHFcQL2b5pkkAQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzyfB+GhNqmDhrzki4tVn0faMLyt_cqgeHFcQL2b5pkkAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dkwRsXAHs2-X_mLgWAG7h-3rAq8>
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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:52:07 -0000

The fact that the nomcom eligibility rules are attendance rather than 
participation is a bug.  It was known to be a bug when it was written.
Okay, if one wants to be picky, it was known to be a mediocre heuristic 
approximation for what was desired.)

The challenge has been to find rules that capture the range of exposure 
/ participation that would actually provide good background for 
leadership selection.

We could not do so when we wrote the rules.
Maybe we can now.  I would love to see better rules.
The challenge for me is telling that a proposed rule set has a 
reasonable chance (there is no sure thing here) of being better.  That 
is part of what prompted the exchange with Michael about data.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/13/15 12:44 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 13 February 2015 at 15:58, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com
> <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> wrote:
>
>
>>     Sure, I appreciate that human contact is important. I've been to
>>     two IETF meetings in the flesh, and I enjoy, and have had
>>     significant benefit from, hallway conversations.
>>
>>     But to claim it's "the most important thing", and to further imply
>>     that no other IETF participation or activity should count for
>>     anything is just astonishing.
>
>     I said no such thing.  I said that NomCom members need to understand
>     the culture, and that participation in the meetings is an important
>     aspect of learning that culture.  In my view, this is confirmed by
>     the survey results.
>
...
> a) The NomCom eligibility rules do not emphasize meeting
> *participation*, but meeting attendance.
>
> b) The NomCom eligibility rules do not *emphasize* meeting attendance,
> they *are* meeting attendance.
...