Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 39DE31A908D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:58:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Ad91kVSHofAU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1551F1A908C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0FB9A4019; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 01:58:02 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L7-QKdvbDxSC; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 01:57:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [5.5.33.242] (vpn.snozzages.com [204.42.252.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0B69A4020; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 01:57:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-94-887927402
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 01:57:22 -0500
Message-Id: <732CCD31-0F13-472F-9825-C5F5D650C41B@vigilsec.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>
To: Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/x9Jk8OoIkOHONmJPkgI-QZeUVIE>
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 06:58:15 -0000

On Feb 11, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> Assuming that you did not contribute for three years in anyway:
> 
> Not three but four, right?
>  
>    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.
> 
> OK, so just to confirm:
> 
> (a) Attend 3/5 to become eligible.  That's easy to verify from the records we keep; you either did or you didn't. 
> 
> (b) For maintaining eligibility, we need to nail down how this gets evaluated.  Is it something like this?
> 
> After attaining initial eligibility, eligibility is maintained by "contributing" at least twice during every calendar four-year period.  This is essentially a sliding window four years wide, during which there must be two recorded contributions for every consecutive four-year window in order for eligibility to continue.

I'm not accepting that this approach is making things better.

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.

Russ