Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Fri, 13 February 2015 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475CD1A8725 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:12:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 l77wKknpBFNl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F1E1A870F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:12:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 111A5C94BD; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:12:29 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:12:29 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
Message-ID: <20150213151228.GO14296@verdi>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <732CCD31-0F13-472F-9825-C5F5D650C41B@vigilsec.com> <2457EE06-4960-40B5-AF10-2EDFBF18B2B6@nominum.com> <7C601AA4-55C4-43FE-B2FE-1D22BD73F166@vigilsec.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7C601AA4-55C4-43FE-B2FE-1D22BD73F166@vigilsec.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/qjuMGYXrcALoT7-_XYn2BmZfVjg>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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, 13 Feb 2015 15:12:44 -0000

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> 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.

   Since Russ is no longer my boss, I'll pick a bone here.

   I have participated in these "hallway conversations" -- and while
they are most helpful to relative newbies, I have found them less
necessary as I became more familiar with IETF lore. They always had
a certain amount of "blind-men-and-the-elehant" to them anyway. :^(

   But regardless, if "hallway conversations" are important, why
aren't we finding a way to accomplish this value over the 'net (and
more than three times a year)?

   IMHO, the "most important thing" about IETF weeks is that they
impose deadlines for _something_ to happen.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>