Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Handling the fear of "bogus" recall petitions

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,
At 01:24 PM 24-10-2019, Eliot Lear wrote:
>That is a fair point.  But I liked Barry's groupings:
>
>a.  Those who have attended in person 3/5 (status quo)
>b.  Those who have previously attended attended in person but are now remote.
>c.  Those who have never attended.
>
>I don't think many people could seriously object to group (b) being 
>added.  The concern is primarily with group (c).  There is also a 
>certain amount of skin in the game that may be of value.  The skin 
>in the game could take the form of meeting attendance or having 
>written an RFC or having had a draft adopted by a WG.  These are all 
>pretty good indicators and there may be others (open source authors 
>having implemented a spec, for instance).  The idea is not to set 
>the bar too high for people who are using our stuff, but high enough 
>still that gaming would be unlikely.

I met Cisco and Huawei employees who encouraged people from Africa to 
participate in the IETF.  I'll disclose that I am affiliated with one 
of the organizations which provided support for those efforts.  Would 
those persons be classified under (c)?

There are Area Directors and other participants who made an argument 
about "good faith".  Is that applicable to a person classified in (c)?

I received a question from a few of those persons about regular 
participation in the IETF.  I doubt that they would understand the 
meaning of "skin in the game".  Would an Area Director tell them that 
they have to pay US $3,000 to be eligible?

I attended a conference in a Southern African country 
recently.  There was a session about regulations.  IETF RFCs were 
mentioned in the presentation and as part of the session 
discussion.  Has anyone on this mailing list been to that region?  If 
so, what is the risk of those persons "gaming" the recall process?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy