Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Melinda Shore <> Fri, 13 February 2015 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2971A0187 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:11:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YLZsLZxbETVe for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F17ED1A0366 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:10:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pdbfp1 with SMTP id fp1so16630411pdb.5 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:10:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hsY4Ixwm97f04/XjLoJoqRDA0Ez56ly/UewE9ReStGk=; b=xj0LVD1l+z4H59fdj2sE5Upwr8vt7BVukJlAzu5G4QXoxFY4vaMovoqObCj/34soOA v8Uz1/05HP82yb8007GpoISAN8UtRoqpuXfjAs01/eqmJjL73ViTx0OTsFLEGl5yeLKP zYeltwYW6mc4FLi3zXKx8mqj1XJsRqBXINGZau5rulkG9qQiRQdfAAfUI8RkcunwoB7o +v0a4w4PyTE01e2u7k8NWOwDJ/ngbyzOrJx93k0RrEWkGsnUP9uie8SyXuRc9eRMf7T5 PnVcBzZmcFustMGMOuLEn4NenJFIAdpxMP2Z1LLTkgX/kIZo6QuaVAkoz6ARVp0cz7V1 mHmg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id uz3mr17818063pbc.26.1423851038620; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:10:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spandex.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id ki10sm2190379pbd.47.2015. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:10:36 -0900
From: Melinda Shore <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:11:36 -0000

On 2/13/15 8:44 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Moreover, if you accept that the word "culture" is effectively
> indistinguishable to outsiders from the term "status quo" (though the
> intent is obviously different), it's really quite revealing. All this
> "preserving the culture" talk comes out in an entirely different light.

I think this is a really important comment.  I mean,
*really* important comment.

But it also seems to me pretty clear that the culture
is changing, anyway, and it's one of those things that
I expect most people know without addressing it directly.
I don't think meetings were so heavily emphasized 10
years ago, although that's subjective and could be wrong.
We've now got a very large number of people participating
whose primary job function is to create standards, and
that's caused some changes because their incentives are
different from those whose job it is to create products
or technology.  I don't know how long it's been since
running code was a significant adjunct to the work being
done in the IETF, but I think it's been quite awhile.
So these cultural shifts are taking place anyway, and
they are not being "managed."  Some are good, some are not.
I do think that the increased significance of meetings
in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about
things like nomcom but about significance to our technical
work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize
people who can't come to meetings and because it slows
work down.