Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 11 February 2015 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 760ED1A8881 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:48:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 D0GBd6Xjatzi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFAE21A887F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:48:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (unknown [49.149.201.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 638A51801127; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:48:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54DB4FA3.80106@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:48:35 +0800
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <04AED0595DF62A6F1013479D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <04AED0595DF62A6F1013479D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eqJLlLgd8HIrCv4mBFdes_b2vGk>
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 12:48:51 -0000

John,

On 2015-02-11 20:40, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 00:50 -0800 "Murray S.
> Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> 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: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64