Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis-03.txt

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:21 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I might be the only one (and this is more or less a call for
> others concerned to speak up), but I do not consider deferring
> the qualification issues until the "next time" acceptable,
> especially given how infrequently we are willing to
> significantly revisit BCP 10 and the supposed emphasis on
> diversity, expanding IETF participation, and enabling remote
> participation.  I believe "qualification requirements" issue is
> actually two topics with the second being more important than
> the first:
>
> (1) The actual qualifications for serving on the Nomcom (see
> Sam's note and my follow-up).
>
> (2) The linkages of various other procedural qualifications to
> Nomcom eligibility.
>
> At least the latter is, IMO, a fairness issue.


Hi John,

In case it wasn't clear from my comments, I agree that there's something to
be resolved here.  My added text here is only capturing the conversation so
far, namely that we all seem to agree on that point but haven't managed yet
to come up with something concrete to replace what's there now.  When that
changes, the text absolutely will change.  If we give up and decide to ship
this revision as-is, we're set; but there's no deadline here, so we can
take as long as we want to come up with something.

Maybe we'll have some success flipping this around.  Perhaps we select the
NomCom volunteer pool by having the ISE, ADs, and WG chairs at least (and
anyone else that wants to) toss out a stack of names each (maybe minimum 10
each), at every meeting, of people they have observed as contributing
either in person or remotely.  Self-nomination is allowed.  That
compilation then becomes the pool of volunteers from which random selection
is done for the next NomCom.  This filters out people that qualify under
whatever criteria we might create but might otherwise be seen to be gaming
those rules, but there are enough people tossing names into the proverbial
hat then that any bias is presumably diluted.

Comments?

-MSK