IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Eligibility-discuss] enfranchising mostly-remote participants

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 28 October 2019 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63131208E1 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aopJOyLO8vwl for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D4D41208D9 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF803897C; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:12:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C64143BF0; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:15:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
cc: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <BA6857F9-5416-48E2-B27C-E906663AB1CE@vigilsec.com>
References: <19743.1572014559@localhost> <BA6857F9-5416-48E2-B27C-E906663AB1CE@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:15:01 -0400
Message-ID: <30718.1572275701@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/V2B-q0BricPjP6e7HG9s0iH5yY8>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] enfranchising mostly-remote participants
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:15:09 -0000

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
    > Rule (a) tries to approximate these by regularly showing up at the
    > meetings.

Agreed.

    > I think that an alternate rule would show investment in the process.
    > Maybe listed as author of an RFC that was published in the last 5
    > meeting window.

Is that a variation for my b.3 criteria, or a new (c) criteria?

(I'm totally onboard with that as an acceptable criteria.  It might be too
strong, but I think we could easily get consensus about this)


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email