Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Discussion: do eligibility paths need to be monitored

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

On 27-Aug-22 08:39, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 26/08/2022 20:55, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> what's the probability we end up with a nomcom where
>>> N voting members who did not attend a f2f meeting in the
>>> relevant timeframe are only eligible under path 1?
>   >
>> Can you clarify?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Path 1 allows for f2f or online attendance, which I support.
> Let's ignore the people who were in-person at one or more
> relevant meetings and only think about those who qualify via
> path 1 but never attended in-person at a relevant meeting.
> (And who don't qualify via part 2 or 3.)
> 
> For N=1 to 10, I'm asking if we might want to estimate the
> probability that we have N such voting members, and whether
> we want to worry about that or not.
> 
> mcr said:
>   > I think that you are dealing with the _6.1.  A Surge of
>   > Volunteers_ threat, right?
> 
> Not quite. I'm not concerned with a deliberate attack, but
> rather about whether we want to worry about the probability
> that few of the voting members have recent f2f attendance.

You mean that the organisation that created many of the
technologies now used worldwide for on-line meetings should
be concerned about its nominiating committee consisting
of people who attend via on-line meetings?

> That wasn't an issue with 8989 since we were all online but
> could be a thing to consider now.
> 
> BTW - I'm not asking we try specify what to do in the event
> of such a situation becoming worrisome as that'd be out of
> charter. I'm just asking if we want to ask for this to be
> monitored, or to establish some threshold that'd cause the
> criteria to be revisited.

Yes, it's a good idea for the data to be gathered and analysed.
But I have no preconception of what we might discover.

    Brian

> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
>