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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

The goal should be to seat people that understand the IETF culture and will actively participate in the NomCom if chosen.

Rule (a) tries to approximate these by regularly showing up at the meetings.

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.

Russ


> On Oct 25, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 
> The current rule for nomcom eligbility is physical attendance at 3 of the
> past 5 meetings.  Let's call this the (a) rule.
> 
> (a) Anyone who satisfies the 3/5 rule is eligible.
> 
>   I propose that we evaluate this in April/May/June of each year, as that is
>   when nomcom cares, and that we apply the status until the following April.
> 
>   {This simplifies things a great deal at the possible cost of not
>   enfranchising someone in November of that year for a potential recall}
> 
> I propose to add (b) rule:
> 
> (b) In April of each year determine:
>    b.1 anyone who had satisfied the (a) rule in the previous year, but does not
>     -OR-
>    b.2 anyone who satisfied the (b) rule in the previous year
>  AND
>    b.3 has attended at least one meeting of the past three.
> 
> IS eligible for the rest of the year.
> 
> ---
> 
> NOW, I didn't write Physically Attended in B.3.
> 
> There are numerous variations and formula that we could go for here, and I
> have quite a number of possible suggestions, but before we tweak that, is any
> support for the overall concept?
> 
> {We *MAY* want to include a one-time bootstrap where we say that anyone who
> was nomcom eligible back to... 1992 if you like... is deemed to satisfy (b)
> for the previous year}
> 
> The GOAL is that once people become nomcom-eligible, we assume that if they
> continue to be involved, that they continue to have a good idea what is going
> on.
> 
> I think that having to satisfy the (a) rule at least once is still a pretty
> big step, and my proposal does not mean I do not also want some (c) rule.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> 
>