Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Russ Housley <> Fri, 13 February 2015 04:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6380C1A008C for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:41:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ohY_KJEi_oR for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:41:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376E91A007A for <>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:41:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2F59A402D; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:41:03 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sgtaA7novEjG; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:40:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719519A401D; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:40:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:40:20 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 04:41:18 -0000


>> 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.

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.