Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

John,

On 2015-02-11 20:40, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 00:50 -0800 "Murray S.
> Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Let's suppose it's perpetual, and then I disappear for three
>> years (nine meetings).  Now I reappear at IETF 104, which will
>> probably be in Minneapolis.  Since IETF 91, I opened a single
>> ticket on a document in DNSOP around the time of IETF 100, and
>> I acted as IAOC scribe once around the time of IETF 103.  I
>> have paid no attention whatsoever in the intervening years to
>> ietf@, to any administrative or technical plenary, gone to any
>> of the working groups or training sessions (even remotely),
>> participated in no hallway track discussions, and not
>> otherwise engaged in any way.  Should I be eligible to serve
>> on the NomCom as a selecting member?
>
> Let me turn this question around, introducing a possibility that
> we have no way to measure but that anyone who watches meetings
> carefully knows happens.  Suppose a hypothetical individual,
> Elmer, attended all of IETF 89, 90, and 91.  His definition of
> "attended" consists of signing up, paying the registration fee,
> showing up at the registration desk to collect a badge, and then
> attending the social and/or bits-and-bytes if either is held.
> In IETF 89 and 90, he sat in on a few WG meetings and signed the
> blue sheets, but spent the time reading email, text-chatting
> with friends, and contributed absolutely nothing to the
> discussion, not even paying enough attention to hums.  At IETF
> 91, he spent the week on the beach.  He has never posted
> anything substantive to the IETF list or any WG list, although
> he has gotten caught up in some of the threads most charitably
> described as comedy and contributed to the noise.
>
> I may be exaggerating -- I don't personally know of cases that
> bad.  But I have reason to believe that there are
> near-approximations out there.
>
> I don't think we want him as a selecting member of the Nomcom
> either.  I don't know how to make easy measurements that would
> identify him and keep him off if his company decided he'd be
> useful to have on the Nomcom to get more of their employees
> selected to key roles.  But let's at least try to remember that
> 3/5 is nothing more than an easy-to-measure but very weak
> surrogate for "has a clue about what is going on".   If I had to
> make a choice, I'd prefer the scenario Murray outlines to Elmer
> although I'm not wild about either.
>
> One other observation: please remember that we've entangled
> "Nomcom eligibility" with a number of other things including,
> IIR, eligibility to apply for other positions and the ability to
> participate in attempts to remedy gross injustice or malfeasance
> by recalling members of various bodies.  We either need to
> decouple those things or we need to consider how changing (or
> not changing) Nomcom eligibility might affect them.
>
>       john

Why would Elmer ever put his name into the NomCom election? Wouldn't
that be committing to do real work?

/Loa
>
>
>
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]