Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 06:23 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 A28A81A904F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:23:35 -0800 (PST)
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 N6Z6Q12tZJBO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:23:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x231.google.com (mail-we0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::231]) (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 4E2141A9067 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:23:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m14so2047831wev.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:23:32 -0800 (PST)
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=+n6gRWaFZ0iAvy+xR4thU645EcstNrcTx2Z2pZjlCL8=; b=V/WF38KyI3lQR64xP2B33wMo2bJJuToF6f569Y2vrbxkodfaRZUWUw+NkUK7tHjl9i b6KalJwJh4XEXYCSF2sU5bmj4UhLJ09mu1DbvqBeg8Xow/3pDTxnZ0heAxAjJP27T9mH RfLAbU6ufgBaVIS0SmJh3ik2Mtd/Z3Tfsnu3/9HTOrJXPqMRBArF/04L0OfINAhs2mCa A5BrsmsocVDqUxyTeG8bCntDmF0ksK09eZiyOuDfuPpHZB2JxkaTm7dAAXHJH4JEQz5y cD+IlThuOnGZr0250SYqliOT+3WOKxHZnLsgTSjUykUw48lg14Oenaf+fs4evokmK/vn F9Kg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.207.83 with SMTP id lu19mr3084939wic.52.1423722212046; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:23:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.179.146 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:23:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <10262.1423710637@sandelman.ca>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <10262.1423710637@sandelman.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:23:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZ5DuBKH+jwiyT5+EUGoeR-XmCBp3dTg2SkWCK_kH+ihw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3a6b8b53cb4050ede28a8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jIm_dFNJQdaRdP6SG9XZR_X0t5M>
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: <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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:23:35 -0000

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>;
wrote:

> I'm confused how you came up with four years.
>

You said:

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

...and I remembered "years" instead of "meetings" for some reason.  Still,
the things you suggested as qualifying contributions don't account for some
other things that I would argue should qualify.  For instance:  Requiring
that I be the submitting author on a document that got WG time disregards
valuable documents that never needed in-person WG time.  The same goes for
the point about opening a ticket against a document that got WG time.

Even better, contributing to the IETF in meaningful ways is not always tied
to meetings.  Some working group chairs and editors do great work for WGs
that never even meet.  Nothing ever gets agenda time in those.

The speed with which something gets to AUTH48 isn't always reliable.  I'm
not sure making that a gating factor would work so well; I could lose my
eligibility just because some directorate review took way too long to come
in.

To repeat: I recognize that we like the general idea here, and I agree.
I'm just having trouble coming up with ways to qualify that aren't
difficult to describe precisely and completely and don't needlessly exclude
people that probably should qualify.

-MSK