--On Thursday, February 19, 2015 00:04 -0500 "Murray S.
Kucherawy" <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> 3) Added a section talking about evolving the qualification
> requirements the next time we revise this document, on the
> presumption that we can't come to consensus right now on an
> acceptable revision. If in fact we can come to consensus on
> some, I can throw this out and make those changes.
Murray,
I might be the only one (and this is more or less a call for
others concerned to speak up), but I do not consider deferring
the qualification issues until the "next time" acceptable,
especially given how infrequently we are willing to
significantly revisit BCP 10 and the supposed emphasis on
diversity, expanding IETF participation, and enabling remote
participation. I believe "qualification requirements" issue is
actually two topics with the second being more important than
the first:
(1) The actual qualifications for serving on the Nomcom (see
Sam's note and my follow-up).
(2) The linkages of various other procedural qualifications to
Nomcom eligibility.
At least the latter is, IMO, a fairness issue.
john