Re: Qualifying for NomCom

Lucy Lynch <llynch@civil-tongue.net> Fri, 08 April 2016 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <llynch@civil-tongue.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6B612D51D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 coKiPkie_ikS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hans.rg.net (hans.rg.net [IPv6:2001:418:1::42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065AC12D1B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hans.rg.net (hans.rg.net [IPv6:2001:418:1:0:0:0:0:42]) (authenticated bits=0) by hans.rg.net (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u38FLeBl090244 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:21:40 GMT (envelope-from llynch@civil-tongue.net)
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:21:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: Lucy Lynch <llynch@civil-tongue.net>
X-X-Sender: llynch@hans.rg.net
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=VL4AUUJC2fdm-YV33kpHhzd54t3Dx0YBh7q0-=RV1Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1604081516150.41080@hans.rg.net>
References: <CAL0qLwY0FuDp5=RMFEhUMtkK=XNDxX2dogvVY7+OSy88jrrvOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=SYpo-CiHoc07Ukb04Kb1LGV2=BPPyRLUsaqyLM9Hbwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbhYRqw7fXHzYY0=W-CpmeHeDdaZx3z2Qg0cA2aMrmVwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nqmC7NJyg2M6Na8vUj8T-qObO-1gHFEXZzrobb3oOQhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZHGa5OvSmZ=bTd6AWchsm4r=QaJn2nPqD+YjeWPmH9pA@mail.gmail.com> <24691.1460062367@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <5706CC94.3080804@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYvCpL9wwHL0E33HRbMvcckpad=gV-VYgAomJpCdiSrpg@mail.gmail.com> <5E36120B-6D4E-4C0D-9905-2C698455D395@att.com> <CAL0qLwak6GRDYAcYqdOewoSmRj6DP5ptQKjqXkOedBaHcKC7WA@mail.gmail.com> <60B61524-EFF7-4489-A0C7-AA4A139FEF6C@att.com> <CAL0qLwYDW_zwfdr4-2=r0vt2Cb1wNFm+-aog0Wubu+8PbaYWEw@mail.gmail.com> <6012C604-0922-4582-A505-F7934B5FD903@att.com> <23201.1460124058@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CAPt1N1=VL4AUUJC2fdm-YV33kpHhzd54t3Dx0YBh7q0-=RV1Vw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pzH6ooEpN8K25-qhe1tKzfpgjZU>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 08 Apr 2016 15:21:45 -0000


On Fri, 8 Apr 2016, Ted Lemon wrote:

> There are some issues here.   First, who can challenge a nomcom volunteer's
> elegibility?   Second, what process is followed if their eligibility is
> challenged?   This actually seems a lot harder than some of the other
> proposals that were put forth, which simply extended eligibility of the
> same type to more IETF participants, rather than creating two classes of
> IETF participants.

Thanks Ted -

As the incoming NomCom chair I have some concerns about how exercising 
judgment can scale to possible requests. The current selection and vetting 
process already includes a lot of steps and processing - if you want to 
add a layer here I'd like to feel confident that this was something the 
community really wanted and that the proposed vetting wouldn't leave those 
executing exposed to second guessing after the fact.

- Lucy


> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> So, we'll know by August if the experiment resulted in more volunteers.
>>
>> My only concern is that we decide it was ineffective in getting more
>> diverse
>> volunteers,  and stop; but it might have needed more than 1 year to
>> socialize
>> the ideas out there.
>>
>> A result might also be: the new rules cause no harm and should be kept
>> until
>> such time we have more data.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>