Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
    > other things that I would argue should qualify.  For instance:  Requiring
    > that I be the submitting author on a document that got WG time disregards
    > valuable documents that never needed in-person WG time.

I take your point; the reason I wrote it that way is because I am sure that
a document that gets 'air-time' must in some way be important.  But, if your
document goes straight to publication, I guess we could change things in
point (1) about AUTH48, and include authors in that list.

    > Even better, contributing to the IETF in meaningful ways is not always
    > tied to meetings.  Some working group chairs and editors do great work
    > for WGs that never even meet.  Nothing ever gets agenda time in those.

I was trying to capture this into the AUTH48 criteria. The reason I picked
AUTH48 is that the document can sit for months in misref after that point.

    > The speed with which something gets to AUTH48 isn't always reliable.  I'm
    > not sure making that a gating factor would work so well; I could lose my
    > eligibility just because some directorate review took way too long to
    > come in.

I see your point;  we value writing documents, reviewing them, and
progressing them.  Progressing them is the thing that brings a person most
into contact with the bureaucracy, and leads (in my opinion) to the most
knowledge of how things work (short of being on the nomcom...)

hmm. I guess perhaps being on the nomcom needs to be included as a
contribution...

    > To repeat: I recognize that we like the general idea here, and I agree.
    > I'm just having trouble coming up with ways to qualify that aren't
    > difficult to describe precisely and completely and don't needlessly
    > exclude people that probably should qualify.

One reason I wondered if the list should be contained in BCP10 is that I
wondered if we would find ways to evolve the list.  Of course, we can write a
document that updates BCP10.  I'm thinking that starting by including some
people is better than including none, and that if there is needless
exclusion, we should figure that out, and adjust things.

[having spent way too much time writing emails on this topic in the last 24
hours, including a few emails I decided not to send, I now wonder if I'll be
near the top of Thomas' posting summary.  Then it occured to me just now,
given how few people who came to the plenary actually read ietf@ietf, one
wonders if being on Thomas' list is a + or - :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature