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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

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.

And I really don’t mean to have us rehashing things that have already been
discussed and ruled out, so I think that, lacking a really good suggestion
of how to make it better, I have to accept that we have a workable
experiment to proceed with.

I wanted to get my comments in now, because when this comes to the IESG my
review as an AD will almost certainly be a simple “Yes” ballot.

Barry

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 1:52 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Oct 29, 2020, at 1:31 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> For me, it's not parity so much as what's a reasonable judgment of
> active participation.  Do we think that someone whose document went
> into the RFC Editor queue 5 years ago, and who has not been active
> since, is an active participant who should be NomCom eligible?  Do we
> think a working group chair who stepped down 3 years ago (or 5), and
> who has not been active since, is an active participant who should be
> NomCom eligible?
>
>
> You could finesse this by adding the requirement that there be an RFC in
> the last five years and an I-D in the past, say, two years, but that might
> be more strict than is necessary.
>
>