Re: Qualifying for NomCom

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 07 April 2016 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A0112D690 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1yJlTKqC3_sL for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D43A12D68E for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id bk9so27919483lbc.3 for <>; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nLGNS8BDD7P/u82PF8xbRuNuqGcxgdGQF7Fx0/BAy04=; b=bZV8ZG88Y9qHPBhJHw7uCr1j7FLcMSG2b8IWBHO305iuAfW2SVnoXI7V7nEpsJ+N0Y H8UMUOJqC5MvKJXG11e9Sr5L4p/D7KJ47PTv2i9bwxMlt2BQ3+zcrLnY39UK5aOq8bFI ZSNY8wUKq1+NGyD4jhAxawA/OSciV6xI+8KX0wMjUDOb17ldSXCo7fycPNdlJ8h9dUsI vVhDF6Oot+0UGUduu0rU8/URdMUcsP7R/AKcfDMKc63T0jQpvtpP10rN9uCdvb5Sj1wu jnXKwmTORSnVBrtyX0GZyUOd/U81g2jHM5Un5mbwcWI6JV0zgYPJsqdDrsA0zv0hyFhQ wcAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nLGNS8BDD7P/u82PF8xbRuNuqGcxgdGQF7Fx0/BAy04=; b=WHyfNrk/XBAe2av70TONrwXeHl2EruemYwIEzuIDszP7yB+aM5VfosOZJnNfjEc4BJ zopC+okOeLp6+s7/VV2Pi7LvhnbmGuIiLKH8A/ok3ebB42xnZkcZYFAlIGwvrYUibxFS WJITwHXiXj+IuHJCRkqWI74Os2nPGlK9BNIPzOablXR55t+oCl7ggPvuWwJqgEwf2kdV MuCMx0yqoUeQ3TDtoNfJyddQNCufAujWCxDn5hqNCuSgr+ORVxX46h3CiqnQUZvQjfSh Yr2KYT63rHlMonlaXPciraUHT6ETMo0t3dQ73T2XC0CKsQRPjxiKgBbA8KzW6IfJsSpk ANFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIRtOgtbVo9VPwDCXjqFWEvCqTLYAMqLVqGeuIoTXL5cPoo+vxGY6TgkUY3Xqk3hC94ZS47Eca6U8txzw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id xa6mr1896826lbb.87.1460052831874; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:67c:370:176:ec62:80b3:91d7:df8a]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:13:12 -0300
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2860865c500052fe90a6a
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:13:56 -0000

What do you mean by "coming to consensus?"

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <>

> Yes, this again.
> I've refreshed RFC7437bis in the datatracker since we're effectively
> between active NomCom periods, so now's a good time to take another look at
> this.
> For those that didn't follow along last time, the big showstopper for this
> draft as I have it now had to do with updating the criteria for qualifying
> to serve on the NomCom.  The current draft says:
> (1) To qualify, one must have attended three of the last five in-person
> meetings, as it's been for a long time now.
> (2) This is regularly criticized as selecting for attendees with the
> support and budget to travel to the meetings, and possibly excludes people
> who make substantial or numerous IETF contributions but participate
> remotely more than in person.
> We made previous attempts on this list to come up with new criteria given
> (2) above, but weren't successful at coming to consensus, so I took them
> back out, leaving the text that's there now.  The previous thread:
> I'd like to take another run at this before the next NomCom really gets
> going.  One suggestion I was given here at IETF 95 is to come up with some
> system that's worth trying, and not over-engineer it to protect against
> gaming or other abuses until such time as such abuse is evident.  It might,
> for example, be sufficient defense to empower the NomCom Chair or the IETF
> Chair (or both) with a "panic button", making them able to declare that
> selection criteria will fall back to what we have now if it looks like the
> proposed new qualification system is likely to yield an inappropriate set
> of selecting NomCom members.
> Comments welcome.
> -MSK