Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 10DB91A1B1F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:29:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 IxvpqZCPNzsx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:29:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com (mail-pd0-f179.google.com [209.85.192.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B740C1A1A04 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:29:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pdbfp1 with SMTP id fp1so2686131pdb.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:29:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ggd7nFvuNkjAQgjIK9482y5ypOyfaxVZWrOJSe/uPrI=; b=Ixbj2dbpg2T8D+4JfoAzzG1CLs+Wah+z4L7rvNpYqfzJLcEpeS0hXD5QMl5WIr5UWM KufjA6IXJrYept7j31WP/WJcTF59mNzFYNo88lXcA+S2GsDFZYGdgqVg2D8vlDEWReUT J50tFW1NlF/goXRU7dh7JtcqfyWmVCOha/wA3v164MOgFBtFLwe75So4oNlwtDms21Gb YUfbChV3hL9YT56xF5P9BtkwJz1WkBoMilmd5unJeHufN3EybSRAcIOEhIwio0tSnVQX vHse/nY0uNm+CZpNWQ/88L5MP4PNsMmKlEOhUC0CM3lU2FrZebaHuqVEFKxUSs9hpk5i 1e0A==
X-Received: by 10.70.48.33 with SMTP id i1mr644983pdn.153.1423690195461; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:29:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fo8sm1720986pdb.74.2015.02.11.13.29.52 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:29:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DBC9D5.3060101@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:29:57 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DBB40D.9030801@gmail.com> <28490.1423687732@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <28490.1423687732@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uj0ivTrkxc5TSO-847WW7rlur6Q>
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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:29:59 -0000

On 12/02/2015 09:48, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > Being geeks, we have a tendency to invent solutions that
>     > are theoretically wonderful but quite impractical. The current
>     > 3/5 rule avoids that and is fairly easy to check algorithmically.
> 
>     > I think we need to keep that simplicity as much as possible. So
>     > something like the following might work.
> 
>     > Either
>     > 3 out of the last 5 meetings
>     > or
>     > 3 out of the last 10 meetings and (RFC author or WG Chair or AD in the
>     > last 5 years)
> 
> When you say "RFC author", I guess you mean something which went through the
> process to get a number.  I guess that means that having your name on the
> front page now has more significant value now.   If two IDs merge, now it
> matters who is an editor, and who is in "Contributors" at the end...
> 
> I would like to know why my previous list was too long or unclear?

For me there is an over-arching consideration: a relatively simple
script must be able to generate the list of all qualified volunteers
from existing databases. Otherwise the whole process will be
impractical.

Inevitably that results in a somewhat blunt instrument.

   Brian

> I specifically listed:
> 
>   0) attend the meeting in person.
> 
>   1) be a document shepherd or working group chair on a document
>      that entered AUTH48.
> 
> "WG chair" was listed above, and I added "that entered AUTH48", because I
> wanted to deal with the possible way to game things where a WG is created as
> a sinecure. No dead WG.  It's the act of going through AUTH48 that I care
> about, not who you were. [The authors of the document get caught by 2]
> 
> And I included shepherd, because I want to provide more opportunities for
> more people; if you attend meetings rarely, you are unlikely to be visible to
> ADs for selection as an WG chair, but shepherds are in short supply.
> And all the above things are trivially checked in the datatracker.
> 
>   2) be the document uploader (pressed submit) on a document that
>      was scheduled into a WG session.
> 
> So anyone can upload at any time.  If the WG takes your document on,
> then the datatracker clearly knows this, so that part is easy to check.
> If you draft-author- is scheduled, this will require some additional
> datatracker effort for the WG chairs to indicate that your document goes into
> the agenda... but, I we wanted to be able to track which documents were
> discussed into which WG anyway for all sorts of reasons, so I think that his
> work will already happen.
> 
>   3) opened a ticket on a document that was scheduled into a WG session.
> 
> While the Issue tracker is not well integrated into the datatracker, I know
> that many want it to be, and also that many want many other improvements.
> Again, knowing that an issue was discussed at a WG session is pretty
> important thing to track, I think... so really the datatracker OUGHT to know this.
> 
>   4) scribed for the I* telechats.
> 
> This requires secretariat/I* action to confirm, and is frankly probably my
> least interesting way.
> 
> Now, I can see how "AD" could make one eligible, and how an AD after a 6
> year term, could easily become non-eligible having taken a break. But:
> 
>      I don't like AD this way because it looks too much like the previous
>      IESG is selecting the new IESG. Yeah, random selection.
> 
>      Since former ADs are well known, often well spoken (thus causing them to
>      write IDs), and are often asked to join directorates and do reviews
>      (therefore opening issues), and might even be really really good
>      shepherds...  I prefer rules about what you do, not who you are/were.
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
>