IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NomCom procedures revision

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 01 September 2015 04:26 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 0A54E1B7D5F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 G_upEqASwwt1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0911B1B7D65 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicmc4 with SMTP id mc4so18949202wic.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QiwkxicyKKRir+qSQZ9KQtje47g4Y/hauE4wDi77K/4=; b=SRaRUUcejTkd9Swb1MBknycQ9gxMhRX1frPM5QN9AItPiOny8IONZ325RhFfnNYZbA a4whAYUWG1xCkouicR7MkyH4WgervvjQOeOLAxbRZ5JyPkJII/OT2Ao00m/wEq37TBzs zYc+fFRsVbwvGqQlq9frJJa6ncZaF/wzvn5jKc0AqFe7zoX2s4IOjcaBluPTVKKb/Coa BGpDvjKG7tKqla5ZIefSzFDvaVg/NiK4N275tQ0UvLTzBNfijxdeJtxldzX0PoyQs4cP k6ZRHXeZfrj48IHA/lZ8rTNJ5mxpqI9gbTV+NTOSEBFG87mLkKWXrROw9dneAoiNm7/v oa8w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.87.4 with SMTP id t4mr33937060wjz.84.1441081613704; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.194.10 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <46DC3DDD2AB9558580D99D5B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <CAL0qLwYJzFZT=OgWqiiTw-n6mvb3PPusRtArmPs_d4_qpLfmpg@mail.gmail.com> <55E0D5E5.6030802@gmail.com> <55E1714C.6070602@pi.nu> <55E21442.3030008@gmail.com> <46DC3DDD2AB9558580D99D5B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:26:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwagsUcPVEOakDkNyB65RPjHwW33kONH_QGfSyxcoeP6fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom procedures revision
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bf10b20ad60fc051ea7f5a5"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/g3fgWOuUq7_bivvP2EV4Rah6fPs>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 04:26:57 -0000

On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 4:05 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> > One way out is to decouple this question from RFC7437bis by
> > designing an RFC3933 Process Experiment (i.e. try out an
> > alternative qualification rule for a couple of years,
> > reverting to the current rule afterwards by default).
>
> This may be too radical but, in the spirit of allowing people to
> apply discretion, let me success such a process experiment based
> on the principle that the reason for Nomcom-volunteer
> qualification rules is to be sure that the selecting members of
> the Nomcom have a reasonable understanding of the IETF and how
> it works.   For the purpose of this experiment,
> [...]
>

For my own clarification, would we publish the current draft without
changing the qualification criteria, and then either revise and republish
or do an "Updates" draft after the process experiment?  Or would we run the
experiment and hold the draft until the experiment is done?

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email