Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 11 February 2015 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77651A8968 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:32:41 -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 RHeQ86gBn3Xy for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:32:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFCF41A1A04 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:32:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74765E00C for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:40:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id F0D9763A21; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:32:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB58363A1F for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:32:38 -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 11:32:38 -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 16:32:42 -0000

Murray S. Kucherawy <> wrote:
    > Setting aside for the moment what exactly we consider "contributed", here's
    > a hypothetical:

    > For IETF 92, one would become eligible by attending at least three of IETFs
    > 87, 88, 89, 90, and 91, just like it has been all along.  Now I'm
    > "eligible".  Does that last forever, or should it expire after some period,
    > requiring another 3/5 in-person to restore eligibility?  (I'm reminded of
    > non-airline pilot re-certification, which at least in the US has to be done
    > every two years regardless of how much you have or have not been flying.)

    > Let's suppose it's perpetual, and then I disappear for three years (nine
    > meetings).  Now I reappear at IETF 104, which will probably be in

Assuming that you did not contribute for three years in anyway:
   wrote/submitted no documents, never presented remotely in a meeting, etc.
then at IETF97 (5 meetings after IETF92, assuming you attended that one),
you would become ineligible, and you'd have to attend 3/5 again to become
eligible.  You'd have to come to IETF104,105, and 106.

Now, you say that you did in fact contribute:

    > Minneapolis.  Since IETF 91, I opened a single ticket on a document in
    > DNSOP around the time of IETF 100, and I acted as IAOC scribe once around
    > the time of IETF 103.  I have paid no attention whatsoever in the
    > intervening years to ietf@, to any administrative or technical plenary,
    > gone to any of the working groups or training sessions (even remotely),
    > participated in no hallway track discussions, and not otherwise engaged in
    > any way.  Should I be eligible to serve on the NomCom as a selecting member?

So, I would claim that you were actually more active than some people who
have in fact attended nearly every meeting.  (and certainly more active than
our hypothetical Elmer)

Alas, everyone reading this thread is probably 10x more active than the IETF
average, so we may have a skewed notion about what it means.

(I wrote contributed twice in the past four meetings. So out of
100,101,102,103, you got 100 and 103.)

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