Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Review of draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06

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

On 30-Oct-20 11:22, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> Yes, or, what I would really like, some sense of how active someone
>     >> has been in working group discussions.  But I know how bad the results
>     >> are likely to be if we key any of this on posting to mailing lists.
> 
>     > I think that really isn’t a foregone conclusion. People suggest that
>     > there will be an influx of new garbage postings if we make this the
>     > rule, but I suspect that’s not at all the case. As an experiment, I
>     > think it would make a lot of sense to test this hypothesis. We could
>     > tie it to the datatracker to keep people honest: if you have an email
>     > address, you can claim it by creating a datatracker login, and then we
>     > can correlate addresses between mailing lists and the datatracker
>     > database. Still definitely gameable, but how serious of a risk is that?
>     > If we did this as an experiment for a year, we’d find out, and could
>     > easily stop doing it if it turned out to /actually/ cause a problem.
> 
> This is definitely the kind of data collection experiment that we should do.
> 
> We need to tell people about this, because it might be important for people
> to know that from date X, if your ML posting address is not listed as an alias
> in the DT, then your posting won't get counted.  So, please go fix your DT
> entries.

I'm all in favour of experimenting with this sort of thing. But not within the
timescale of getting the current draft approved, so that people know what the
criteria will be well in advance of next year's NomCom process.

    Brian