Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Russ Housley <> Fri, 13 February 2015 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44AC1A8762 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:59:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U3FanMX3CxuA for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FFF1A8741 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6DA79A401D; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:59:41 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GEPATAxJfwId; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:59:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE329A402E; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:59:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-140-1006823787
From: Russ Housley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:58:58 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Dave Cridland <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:59:55 -0000


> On 13 February 2015 at 04:40, Russ Housley <> wrote:
> We disagree.  Many people tell us (on the IAOC surveys) that the most important thing that happens at IETF meetings is the hallway conversations.  It is a significant part of the culture.
> This makes me really quite angry.

I'm sorry that you are angry.

> Maybe my last note wasn't clear; I wrote it as gently mocking sarcasm, but clearly this is too subtle, since you've written something so diametrically opposed to what I was hinting at that it may as well be a strawman. Maybe it is, and maybe you're simply trolling for a more obvious reaction from me, and similar folk. In which case, bravo, you have it. But if this is a genuine viewpoint, then it epitomises everything that's wrong with the IETF, and represents an appalling and untenable position for any IAB member, let alone the IAB Chair to take.

I was not replying to your note.  I was replying to Ted Lemon.  Based on his follow-up message, I think he understood my point.

> Sure, I appreciate that human contact is important. I've been to two IETF meetings in the flesh, and I enjoy, and have had significant benefit from, hallway conversations.
> But to claim it's "the most important thing", and to further imply that no other IETF participation or activity should count for anything is just astonishing.

I said no such thing.  I said that NomCom members need to understand the culture, and that participation in the meetings is an important aspect of learning that culture.  In my view, this is confirmed by the survey results.

I would love for remote participation tools to offer the same experience.  Today they do not.  Maybe some day, remote participation tools will become good enough, and when that happens we can deemphasize the meeting participation in the rules for NomCom eligibility.