Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Report on the RFC 8989 experiment

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > As a co-author of RFC8989, I'd like to thank the IESG, Barbara, Gabriel
    > (and Robert Sparks behind the scenes) for this very clear report.

me too!

    > IMHO, remote attendance counting towards NomCom eligibility has been a
    > success now for two years running (RFC8989 and RFC8788), so whatever
    > the final conclusion for the other paths in RFC8989, remote attendance
    > should remain as a criterion. If we move to hybrid meetings, we'd need
    > to define a bit more precisely what "remote attendance" means.

I agree that we'd have to decide if the remote attendees for a hybrid meeting
would not get counted as 8788 does not apply, and 8989 applies to entirely
online meetings only (effectively extending 8788's criteria).

As WGs go from ad-hoc/webex to meetecho for virtual interim meetings, we get
automatic bluesheet calculations.   I was in two meetecho virtual interims
this week.  It would be nice to know if there are people who begin to attend
only virtual interims, who would likely qualify under path 2/3 (probably
mostly 3) who could not qualify under path 1.  If I had my way, we'd
decongest plenary week and this would become even more important.

But, given the huge gap between those who qualified and those who actually
volunteered, we need to do gather some additional data.

I'd like to suggest to the IESG and our Executive Director that we need to
survey/interview some random sampling of people who were qualified, but did
not volunteer.

(Yes: some of them did not volunteer because they want to serve. Perhaps we
can subtract them from the survey list once the list of candidates is known)

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide