Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Melinda Shore <> Fri, 13 February 2015 07:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B60B1A1B62 for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:59:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7mVC1o7iWwx7 for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 158AD1A1B6E for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id fa1so17336008pad.2 for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:59:50 -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=Y64iureVb28PrM/axLWQ0xdv230p57eOCwc9MKdi/OA=; b=M8r6A6JshuJvREpfg2dFSmgE1+Mo2lT57HKFLVIh4xV72axWhXF0eFBtQwnbC9eEZJ ayqVJTklLSq6a+uB/zTSr+TqNRdCZp75PlZLLGRtr523++sjxpivKOpsVBhg2fICvjGY mL0OD0Ug9HzTgalHPE6x9Dp1oXhgdCJNQwQXNXTljEMnXb8Nl5xu9kuWjMvD/ALNOmv1 larQRa++xg+ZHD0qfITqVF/iltEpYPYHS6+WWi1VvAzy0gjtYnMKZHWu+O56t9TkcFnX EoHvHilRufgmsL/YvhliZrr7GU+koe6swNJ6rNayBaaEXKIE1G90NgYzesOQaHyIVpAI ij/Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id dw16mr13627504pac.100.1423814389310; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:59:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spandex.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id dq4sm5782995pdb.96.2015. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 22:59:46 -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=ISO-8859-1
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 07:59:53 -0000

On 2/12/15 7:40 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> We disagree.  Many people tell us (on the IAOC surveys) that the most
> important thing that happens at IETF meetings is the hallway
> conversations.  It is a significant part of the culture.

I think there's a cultural thing at work - it appears to be increasingly
the case that IETF culture requires meetings and face-to-face
discussion.  There are companies that have telecommuting cultures and
in which it's possible to have "hallway" discussions online, and ones
in which remote work is not part of the culture and if there are
people offsite they're remembered as an afterthought, if at all.  I've
been irritated recently by the extent to which we've moved away from
being an organization that makes useful things towards one which
publishes requirements documents and problem statements and which
sinks a lot of effort into proposals which isn't driven by actual
product or deployment needs.  I think there's a productivity
cost, because we get big pulses of work three times/year and not
enough gets done between.  The increasing valuation of meetings
doesn't really do much to discourage that.  (My real beef is with
being underresourced and oversludged and the amount of time it takes
to complete work as a result; if we had plenty of bandwidth and
tons of work was being done between meetings, less-than-useful
work wouldn't be a problem).