Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 11 February 2015 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D4C1A8A23 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:03:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9AGltnWWOtNA for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:02:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEF031A89FD for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:02:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7758FE19B for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:09:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id C18F263A21; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:02:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0AE363A1F for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:02:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: ietf <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:02:20 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:03:05 -0000

Ted Lemon <> wrote:
    > The operation of each nomcom are pretty opaque to those who are not on
    > it.   For those who have interacted with a nomcom as candidates, such
    > an impression might exist.   It's possible that nomcom liaisons or
    > chairs could speak to this.   However, since nomcom proceedings are
    > supposed to be confidential, I don't know how much they could really
    > say.   Because these properties of the nomcom are intentional and
    > useful, it does make sense to be particularly careful about how nomcom
    > eligibility is determined and not just trust to peoples' good natures.

The 2013/2014 had someone who had to be removed because they could not attend
any meetings, and were never able to organize themselves to attend calls.
I think that they weren't Elmer; my poor recollection is that a family member
got ill, and they simply couldn't do much other than their 9-5.  I never met
this person, didn't know who they were.

The take home if that if one does select Elmer, and s/he sits on the beach
rather than coming to the nomcom meetings, the nomcom can boot them out. If
it happens early enough, the nomcom chair can replace them, or the nomcom can
operate with 9 rather than 10.

Allison has suggesting selecting 11 people, with the 11th being a
participating, but non-voting spare.  I'm undecided if this would be a good
thing.  In 2014/2015 I did select an 11th from the pool, and confirmed that
selection with others in case we needed someone else.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-