Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael StJohns <> Thu, 15 January 2015 00:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F6421B2A87 for <>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:29:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.113
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MISSING_MID=0.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GlJgGCkGiaow for <>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD56C1B2A8E for <>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:29:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id g0Uq1p0084yXVJQ010V7k6; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:29:07 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id g0V61p00Q3Em2Kp010V63Y; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:29:07 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 19:29:08 -0500
To: Nico Williams <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOgE6w1PdaeG3koJ7jx8x4qCyPGbaUqKmkTOLROEighgyQ@mail.g>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1421281747; bh=5koTRXACpGSBDVLKjO+L7Z3pAGkn0MLPSvo7JFBCepc=; h=Received:Received:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=H7H+ScEVSPN6QLru2SoBjDi8QyP1+rtWSAsftzJYb8dCy1TJ+zNcK1+pf0sJupS/0 FQeHFbvx0tHsnQFM8MORK8RlWkM3Zq4pV0wm5qmfx9Rk/huRLk4tpRlMUGqehvpHP0 ggxbzwYXx1SyTpXRo6TfePz+RDXhkYZETVKBbbIrx4PNQQ1CqViR8l9pB/kZDuLz5F dxYWu1wb9CS1WWPaN3nSvWX14tpKRN5ewArS0nSudZVX1r6j2NiL3LzEUH+bkwygn2 HPlv+NV3hJZDkJzKQm6AWxnygR/Eok3RG8AaqXNNlB+VQEWvLb/FDErG6Tyma/9DXI CAoTyitr5Yhmw==
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Michael Richardson <>, ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:29:10 -0000
Message-ID: <>

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