Re: Updating BCP 10 -- round two

Michael StJohns <> Wed, 11 February 2015 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F001A0371 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:07:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.513
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.513 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, MISSING_MID=0.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kSFaWWbTt0BU for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:07:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 384B71A1A58 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:07:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id r9671p00C2Fh1PH0197HW1; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:07:17 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id r97G1p00N3Em2Kp0197HNz; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:07:17 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:07:49 -0500
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>, Michael Richardson <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- round two
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1423688837; bh=CorNlin+Vi8b0PEeA6MoPlk1JmSu/qNPs5cOfDiI70o=; h=Received:Received:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=DkjXBwDYSFet++dgx3BV+B3ZT3whqriQP5S2xOX+a5ls8KmHgDjoi7A5lmCjffv4r ZwO8mSaARe+BtNhJWmnDHbCuohQKhOqf0On75NKkGKmIB1bg5B3q15cH/ziFIaQDFC JzaA6WGhMAOzw3ZKuuC77a1UvP10EqUwu8+oPPH9U9qpas5Nzlr/Ki6tjkVkfU0Xwu k9WOEaTFCW6HGx6xGa8mj7ZFVhS1dxtkuX3XtpTXJdZ7rcSKLmJMzaT3o7v9EtqWkC 7x0ngVztEppSbcrWv354LuyJfr7b8mzRTXBvr0ZLRC0NSH5gMkw5Pa/RA/8oLG/2IR ZUa05vn4HJK7w==
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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:07:21 -0000
Message-ID: <>

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