Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Sun, 11 January 2015 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECCFC1A0231 for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:05:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q4euTKj9lSYn for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A2FC1A01FA for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z12so13127209lbi.4 for <>; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:05:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/EABYhtYdGbCeaENEzTB9iLNWW74vGzhDjyJIo+ahKc=; b=jnD6p3926nre5ZcFT0UVbcVdIUFXhx7d6goJ1Y/+d9CFeF6MtCYr1SvJd4ln4w0lMF daJHYUjcXVuPcvYkGjgEN8vKYRQZ4hjm8Cb4MUJ8ipSTfA3T9xYnMEte6Wn6WxiX+Ou+ /kMnCAsJhq15JGQ3sGtwCFoeG+i2a8m1qDOyL3g23KUYN1A78Z2chzpbEeeH2VsVmMlw ZjM/36rlZuaslRlAHSt2n0Jj7qcBBT60hmoF+o0Px/x+x/kziscOxbvCdk1+Ss8dec05 k6C3sCaGg9eE16A1BA4iYk467aOh7wA5ZaKI1jBfMrLB+tv6b0z6yn0mZbkofPG+mXmY zt9w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id w8mr29680614law.41.1420934712365; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:05:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:05:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:05:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:05:12 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
To: Michael StJohns <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01494328c79a35050c55249b
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Michael Richardson <>,
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: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:05:22 -0000

Inline ...

On Jan 10, 2015 4:31 PM, "Michael StJohns" <> wrote:
> At 02:30 PM 1/10/2015, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >Occupying a formal role in a WG or directorate,
> >or becoming an IETF-stream RFC author, would be much harder to game.
> And unfortunately, more subject to oligarchical abuse as those are chosen
by the ADs or WG chairs chosen by the ADs.
> How about instead:
> Everyone who volunteers for Nomcom must have at least 3 certified and
approved instances of being a note taker or jabber scribe for a full set of
sessions for a specific working group in the past 5 meetings in addition to
attending 3 of 5 meetings.  "Approved" means that the notes are complete,
correct and readable as viewed by the majority of the WG chairs and
editors.  "Certified" means that the WG chair(s) heard you volunteer and
noted that in the minutes.   Notes may be taken in any language, but must
be translated to English within a month of the end of the IETF meeting.
Multiple note takers may be certified at any given meeting and all notes
gleaned from any of them will be added to the meeting record.
> The above has the advantage that it is a relatively small bar, it
provides a benefit to the IETF, and its annoying enough to discourage the
run of the mill gamers from participating.

Michael, I think you omitted a significant advantage of this specific
proposal - it's something someone DOES, as opposed to something someone IS.

I'm too jet-lagged to think about specifics on the no-doubt excellent
proposals in these threads  (my plane from Shanghai to DFW landed almost
exactly 24 hours ago, and that was my third flight last week), but I'd
encourage folks to think of criteria that requires some beneficial action
to the Internet community rather than simply holding a position.

We do trip over people from time to time who are no longer able to
participate in the IETF, but don't step down from positions until someone
asks them to step down.

Thanks, and best wishes to all of you on an important conversation!


> The phase in is 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 sessions over the next 5 meetings.
> Later, Mike