Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Wed, 14 January 2015 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FD01A9079 for <>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:17:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2aeR14UP_-Y4 for <>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:17:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597771A901C for <>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:17:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p9so10179066lbv.0 for <>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:17:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SWfwAa+T0WcQCkJJyxdGyVVqs0a8il/FdqYA5RfU0fQ=; b=VZR3GCERCL1cxTKCrhdoeK5wm6qat12kOyKeGc5zZTfe52sBl0FxUVgrPffVhxHSqJ dmQxpwxmTgIW7b4X9DMwCzuiRbnEwwIBPQ5ZumJ4chZU/d2MeV5etPDk6Q/eq0vkcLDH g9MrQAVMRMspEbBVpCCoLObqFxW1vx40Xr7H6sLIQLx4AZc7E8PQN5d030wJudL/aI60 m+ibym+d7ms/5S4Sgu6zmCtIJmwpIKll2fiWY9vsboazdRtTXRyvP66PA8cO022hM2dD wDEr+406MfBVsZi70P0BXNlmJUJcmFTNzWIKFmdG3on51Ob+ynj5/aXiXEGjR3764CDe jkWA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 8mr5987679laq.97.1421270257866; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:17:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:17:37 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: VsMjX6aUD-r9PQkYydmp9WatObo
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: Nico Williams <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122e8e0d99e06050ca344a9
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: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:17:41 -0000

I think the whole notion of qualification is being considered too narrowly.
Michael's original proposal was a good one: open up more participation.

Being on nomcon is in itself a far bigger time sink/commitment than jabber
scribing. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would sign up unless they
were already committed unless the barrier to entry was really low and
ballot stuffing a possibility.

>From what Michael says of the system it appears to me that we could fairly
easily relax the criteria to be 3 out of the last 5, 4 out of the last 7, 5
out of the last 9, etc. which converges on 50%.

The advantage to this approach is that it would be fairly straightforward
to vet while keeping the criteria suggested by Michael. If you were
eligible in 2014 and go to one meeting in 2015 you will probably be
eligible in 2015.

While this does have the odditiy that someone who has attended every
meeting for the past ten years would be eligible for the next ten years
without attending another meeting, that probably does not matter very much
because I really don't think anyone in that situation is likely to
volunteer for Nomcon unless the circumstances are exceptional (e.g. ITU
takeover bid).

I would further suggest that Dave Crocker has raised a rather ugly problem
in that if the IESG has the power to change Nomcon eligibility rules it
leaves us open to a possible takeover as an attacker only needs to subvert
two nomcons in succession.

I would suggest therefore that any changes to the eligibility rules be
subject to ratification by a two thirds majority of those qualified for
participation under the old rules.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Nico Williams <>

> In what way does scribing help someone be an appropriate choice to be
> on the NOMCOM?
> In my experience scribing makes it really difficult to participate in
> any other way (e.g., in a discussion) for the duration of the scribing
> duties.  Not exactly something that adds value to the scriber.
> Anyone who can type fast and who can hear well can scribe, but this
> says nothing about their knowledge of process, people, issues...  How
> much one has scribed seems like a useless metric to me.
> Nico
> --