Re: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-nomcom-procexp-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 09 April 2016 04:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB36E12D687 for <>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 21:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, 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 K-6bt5OvSKkL for <>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 21:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23E0F12D0FC for <>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 21:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ot11so2353912pab.1 for <>; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 21:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:references:from:organization:to:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZPIMTu3fEdl6GzJbQ/yHcoyQ4Sj0Vy4Xi5GKE/CzJ1o=; b=Ac+QTnVb7z0tzxh1ePOj9eOx+6TwB+mwK51/aas8NoxDLN0Q1CB7PTctTz+SVo+KCN hgDAGBE8ViK4e84697/vBt3Cqj/xDguF/hTD1rqt6VvROF/8HVCocibgRwur+JIpfgLX LvpRXSr2GGjooJG8t00VBWjhYpHe0FPOrhr9o8if0F5o+TY4q/o3e0bwpTc47Hj41zsz P017atQWzoscZfguXC6qkdymPfIPnBAce1fjoIvnmYg7sMSwk/8v+LMlWBGKMA7kF4z7 Vn3FKURviABzWrkNrv+0AIj+Zo9+olcMBYiS7TJ6v8AfBQJhu8pmykLIEDWRjmXW83M3 AVtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:from:organization:to :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZPIMTu3fEdl6GzJbQ/yHcoyQ4Sj0Vy4Xi5GKE/CzJ1o=; b=OkzfT2sdHiZ5y1g9KSMCkIahScdgs5Hcg9luLNbJjcH64yOWdcAIFGncLuzY7sZf8m KD/dF9mEOV+OLHiWp/dbdpEyVmRjjhfIcCDGkIxKgDr+ejgVBYO6bZZJkhEI3Bp9nWxT 0Do4tCvLVrh/JOQU1UI70QxDo7k/lfDUUHAKFFPBNYygG6g8tBZ6hoWytnVWbJzE6Qh+ jjJPfSPKQyduMQJoQfqaAvRos/7p48XEZpUFwV6XSgQvyF4oslyDxZCzZwOo7IsMrLxJ MQnFRgz4Ninoc6mOyzcYSdApO32ICmrqSOEwnt1X+fOXPcsE1dmAFEpF6OtupfkO9mZb jk7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK4/D3cz7N5fjW4eeTxKXBwl/xMVf8xW2PXZZrG59dpaY440Dw5Odd9kKQvN771bA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id lj1mr17406996pab.51.1460175559762; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 21:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7c81:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7c81:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id tn5sm21768293pac.32.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 08 Apr 2016 21:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-nomcom-procexp-00.txt
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
To: IETF discussion list <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 16:19:26 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
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: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 04:19:21 -0000

>    The
>    purpose of this constraint is to prefer community members that have
>    had an opportunity to observe the contributions and conduct of other
>    members directly rather than purely through remote participation.

s/an opportunity/a recent opportunity/

I think that was really the point - prefer people who had recently been
able to make observations of behaviour, and avoid old-timers who don't
participate much any more.

>    3.  A new reason to challenge a selection is that a specific member
>        who has not attended three of the last five meetings of the IETF
>        is not suitable for the NomCom.  Such a challenge must be
>        accompanied by an explanation of why that particular member is
>        not suitable.

I think this is too general and judgmental. Suggestion:

   3.  A new reason to challenge a selection is that a specific member
       who has not attended three of the last five meetings of the IETF
       does not have enough recent participation of any kind to be an
       effective member of the NomCom.  Such a challenge must be
       accompanied by a specific explanation of why the challenger
       considers this to be the case.

I do think one possible outcome needs to be added:

   X.  That the results of the experiment suggest that the changes made
       in Section 2 are damaging and should not be applied again;

I regard this as unlikely, but I disagree with the comment that the
experiment is bound to succeed. I can think of a number of failure
scenarios, several of which would cause the NomCom chair to abort
the process.