Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

At 02:47 PM 1/14/2015, Nico Williams wrote:
>In what way does scribing help someone be an appropriate choice to be
>on the NOMCOM?


Unlike some ID submissions, the scriber is performing a service of benefit to the IETF as a whole.  :-)   And anyone who can't give up a couple of hours to scribe is unlikely to be a great participant in the Nomcom.

Seriously,  what I would hope would happen is that person who is interested (participating, writing, throwing stones) in WG A, but only peripherally interested in WG B volunteer to scribe WG B rather than (as you point out) get distracted in WG A.  Thus allowing the WG B interested people to write/throw stones/hum without needing to come up with a scribe.

I wrote privately to someone that this proposal was more or less a throwaway.  I put it in because two threads had combined in a really interesting way - the "we need more Nomcom volunteers so we should think of a way to make it easier to volunteer" and the "we need 'qualified' volunteers so we should come up with a criteria that includes 'contributing'" threads.    

I tend to identify with the "qualified volunteer" school, but I'm at a loss for coming up with criteria that is a) objective, b) non-exclusive (in that you don't need to have a WG or AD chair pick you for a long term position or where so few positions are available that the pool gets painfully limited) and c) evidences "qualification".

Having someone willing to give up some of their time at the IETF to help out as a scribe met (a) and (b).  For (c) it isn't exactly qualification, but it does help in obtaining broader knowledge of the IETF process IMHO.

As I said, it was a throwaway and we really don't need to continue.  Frankly, I don't like any of the proposals I've heard.

Later, Mike