Updating BCP 10 -- some minor bits

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 09 January 2015 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D271A87E4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:34:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kUxJHxsmBOEn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:34:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C4371A6FCB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:34:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca []) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D683C203AA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:39:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 3A7E7637FE; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:34:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost []) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D68C63745 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:34:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Updating BCP 10 -- some minor bits
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:34:24 -0500
Message-ID: <3764.1420828464@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ou2iIS5ZAsIwLqFXR7X_9z72A9U>
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: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 18:34:27 -0000

1) I suggest the words "voting volunteer" be changed to "selecting volunteer"
   as there are votes, such as when to have the next meeting, which all
   members of the committee should participate in, and the words "non-voting
   member" have been mis-understood.

2) several of us suggest that the Chair for year X, be appointed prior to the
   the beginning of the Third IETF of year X-1.  This permits the
   chair-elect/future-chair, to participate and learn about the process prior
   to starting.  While this adds about 4 months to the duration of the chair
   duties, it probably reduces their stress sufficiently that they will live
   an extra year longer.

3) while the voting proceedures have been left up to the nomcom to agree on;
   it might be worth making it clear how and if the voting proceedure is
   agreed to, and if it can be amended.

4) Quorum says:
   > Only voting volunteers vote on a candidate selection.  For a
   > candidate selection vote, a quorum is comprised of at least seven of
   > the voting volunteers.

   If a voting member is recalled, it would be nice if the quorum became
   six. It is also unclear if a voting volunteer refuses to cast a ballot,
   how things are to be counted.

5) recall says:

   >Regardless of the circumstances, if individual committee members can
   >not work out their differences between themselves, the entire
   >committee may be called upon to discuss and review the circumstances.
   >If a resolution is not forthcoming, a vote may be conducted.  A
   >member may be recalled if at least a quorum of all committee members
   >agree, including the vote of the member being recalled.

it would be nice to know if the "entire committee" includes liasons here.
I think that it does, and some have agreed in the past.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [