[Eligibility-discuss] Eligibility strawman

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I feel that we should move as fast as reasonably possible, rather than rehashing the arguments again.

Hence, here's a strawman. Just the bare bones, of course:

# Goals

- Resolve the issue of active remote (or rarely in-person) participants being disenfranchised in the NomCom and recall processes.

- Prepare for an era in which face-to-face plenary meetings are less frequent (thus extending the issue to many, perhaps a majority, of participants).

- Do this quickly in view of the risk of IETF 108 being cancelled too, but ensure that the result is flexible.

- Ensure that those eligible are true "participants" with enough current understanding of IETF practice and people to make informed decisions.

- Criteria must be algorithmic so that the Secretariat can check them mechanically.

# Criteria

To keep things simple, use the same eligibility rules for NomCom volunteers and for recall petitioners (no change). The issue of how many petitioners are required for a recall is separate and is not discussed here.

Define several alternative paths to eligibility, any one of which is sufficient (unless the person is otherwise disqualified):

- Path 1: as today, has attended 3 out the last 5 *in-person* plenary IETF meetings.

- Path 2: has been a WG Chair or Secretary within the last 3 years.

- Path 3: has submitted at least 6 reviews as a member of of an official IETF review team within the last 3 years.

- Path 4: has served in the IESG or IAB, or has been appointed to a formal role by the IESG or IAB, within the last 5 years.

- Path 5: has been a listed author of at least 2 IETF stream RFCs within the last 5 years.

# Criteria not included

- Individual I-D authorship (too easy).

- Sending lots of email (too easy).

- Remote attendance (no objective way to measure active participation).
 
Regards
   Brian Carpenter