Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05.txt

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

On 10-Sep-20 10:23, Michael Richardson wrote:
...
>     >> I think that it is better to deal with the other paths properly, rather than
>     >> mutate the 3-of-5 rule to include remote participation.
> 
>     > If you look at the data snapshot, 375 people out of 1538 are eligible
>     > only because of attendance. What you say would exclude those 375. Maybe
>     > that's what we want, but it's a long term issue, out of scope for the
>     > proposed experiment.
> 
> Yes, but how many volunteered?  That's the number that we would be excluding.

29 out of 135 actual volunteers, with the historical data.
That's 21%, which is commensurate with 375/1538 = 24%.

So, 20-25% of the actual and potential volunteers have no
recent experience of running a WG or authoring an RFC. Is that
so bad? If it had been 50%, I would have been worried.

    Brian