Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A51B1A87B9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:02:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oCRZLw7wlgmy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD92C1A6EE1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBEEDDA025E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:02:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00D753E084; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:02:17 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <732CCD31-0F13-472F-9825-C5F5D650C41B@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:02:14 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <2457EE06-4960-40B5-AF10-2EDFBF18B2B6@nominum.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <732CCD31-0F13-472F-9825-C5F5D650C41B@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/swY_VkD1LBfmJycwsUPf1ny9UFI>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:02:19 -0000

On Feb 12, 2015, at 1:57 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>; wrote:
> I see the 3/5 attendance record as a means to ensure that the potential NomCom voting member is familiar with the culture of the IETF and that they are aware of the current issues that are facing the IETF, at leas in the portion of the IETF where they are active.  I see (b) as a way to determine continued participation, but it can be done in a fashion that is quite isolated.  In my view, we want to encourage participation in the IETF community.

That's why the 3/5 is how you get in, and continued participation is how you stay.   I think your point about IETF culture is right, but it's ridiculous to think that an organization that invented and that continues to invent the Internet has to have in-person carbonfests every four months in order to be effective, and I don't think it's true.   Requiring mostly in-person attendance to maintain cultural relevance is not necessary, and goes against what we have been trying to achieve.