Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 11 February 2015 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6AF1A039D for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:59:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uZMONcGIhmyB for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D79911A036E for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t1BFxgmM012651 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:59:46 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:59:37 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Loa Andersson <>, ietf <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:59:46 -0800 (PST)
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 15:59:49 -0000

On 2/11/2015 6:26 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>       Ensure that at least a portion of the Nomcom has contributed in
>> formal, documented way.  AD, Chair, author.. whatever set of activities
>> we feel makes it likely they will have clue.
> I guess I'm old-time minded here, what is wrong with 3 meetings out
> of 5, and if you want co-authored document.

That's a version of what I'm suggesting.  And I think that requiring
some percentage of nomcom to have that qualification would be better
than our current requirement.  (I'm not commenting on the debate about
registration numerics.  I think it has merit and I think good points are
being made, but don't have a strong opinion about it.)

However I think it would be better still to count other IETF roles too.
 In reality, authors often have little direct contact with the processes
that Nomcom selects people to perform.  On the other hand, most (all?)
folk who do have that direct experience with IETF management processes
have also been authors. (That is, I'm suspecting that the single, simple
criterion you cite might really be sufficient as a superior

>> As for Loa's question about why someone who hasn't done real IETF work
>> would want to volunteer, the answer is politics and/or ego.  They or
>> their company might want to hold sway over nomcom or the person might
>> just want to add this to their resume.
> With due respect - I don't think this is how it work, do we have any
> running code?

Unfortunately, yes.  One or more occurrences.  Perceived clearly by a
variety of IETF management folk.  But alas, no, it can't be discussed in

Happily, this sort of thing is rare.  But a position on Nomcom is
disproportionately high leverage and, therefore, needs meaningful
protection against problematic membership, IMO.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking