Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 09 January 2015 19:03 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815FA1A8F33 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:03:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DqSW44fvtUqt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B5571A87E4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca []) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68611203AA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:09:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id D8F7C637FE; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:03:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost []) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB7A63745 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:03:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@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: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:03:36 -0500
Message-ID: <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eQMXuzb7bouRAGHrjL0t9n1xTaE>
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, 09 Jan 2015 19:03:41 -0000

I would like to change the nomcom eligibility criteria.
SM has proposed some things awhile ago in:

kept the current rules of 3/5, but added options where
the "3rd" meeting could really be in the form either having
been to a lot of meetings, or having used day-passes..

I don't think SM's proposal does the right thing.
My concern is primarily about people who enter our culture,
and then for some reason are unable to travel. (Could be health,
could be inability to get VISAs, could be funding, could be children) 

So I would keep the 3/5 in-person meetings to *become* nomcom 

Once eligible, the rules for remaining eligible would be different.
I would propose something like having *contributed* to at least two
meetings in the past four.  We could come up with complex or simple
rules on what it means to contribute, we could automated it, and
we can discuss all the ways that various rules could be gamed.
My ideas for contribution would include:
  0) attend the meeting in person.
  1) be a document shepherd or working group chair on a document
     that entered AUTH48.
  2) be the document uploader (pressed submit) on a document that
     was scheduled into a WG session. (A document authors that has
     never been to a meeting would never have become eligible. If
     document authors want to rotate who submits, that actually
     seems like a good idea if it keeps their hand in, as I've had to almost
     stalk some co-authors during AUTH48 who seem to have fallen off the
  3) opened a ticket on a document that was scheduled into a WG session.
  4) scribed for the I* telechats.

Note that I have avoided counting "remote attendance" activities
specifically, because that would require us to figure out who attended
and register them, etc. and I don't think we are ready for that yet.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [