Re: Updating BCP 10 -- round two

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

At 11:44 AM 2/11/2015, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>In theory the idea of trying to recognize a broader class of sufficiently involved participants sounds good.
>The details did not seem to work for me, but I am happy to wait and see the next version of a specific proposal.


This is a useful goal.  A more important goal is to have a good Nomcom result.  The connection between this goal and the one you stated is not a foregone conclusion.

One of the things I'm seeing in this discussion is a volunteer centric "I can't participate because I didn't meet the requirements, so lower the requirements" cry for consideration.   I'm not sure that's a valid consideration and I don't know how it meets contributes to the "good Nomcom result" goal.

Dave C and others have talked about how to get more qualified Nomcom members for some definition of "more qualified" and I'd spend time on that topic if someone could actually explain what other qualifications made sense.  

The current quals of 3 of 5 meetings are at least objective and quantifiable, and have at least some relevance to the "knowledge of the IETF process is good for Nomcom members" meme.   Any other qualification requirements should ideally be objective and quantifiable and have some relationship to the above.

Later Mike