Re: [Eligibility-discuss] NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 (fwd) Scott Mansfield: RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Michael,

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:26 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

> My two cents...
>
> < SNIP >
>
> My suggestions:
> 1) Drop the 3/5 face-to-face requirement for the upcoming nomcom (since we
> don't really have a process for virtual participation yet)
>

If we took the proposal of just ignoring the. IETF107 meeting and took the
rest (2 of 4 meetings from IETF103 - IETF106), would that not be valid and
hold closest to the intention of the current process? (understanding we
need to update the process in light of recent events for future Nomcoms).

This would relax the criteria a bit, but keep it closest to what would have
been expected had IETF107 not been a virtual meeting.

I was just thinking that we keep it as simple as possible for now to seat
this Nomcom and give ourselves more time to then make more
substantive changes to the eligibility.  Making other changes (large or
small), are likely to have unintended impacts so I think trying to avoid
that may be best (IMO).

As for those who "checked the box", we can still have folks step up and
volunteer even if they did not, so there is not real loss there.

regards,

Victor K

>
> -scott.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 7:53 AM
> To: Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; Barry Leiba
> <barryleiba@computer.org>; IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-3-26, at 19:54, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
> > I want to get the largest pool of candidates.
>
> so that's a worthwhile goal.
>
> But: My guess is that any fine-tuning here would not make a huge difference
> to the size of the pool of people eligible to be considered as voting
> members.
>
> The pool that we actually want to maximize is the sub-pool of eligible
> people *who volunteer to be considered*. If we can convince more eligible
> people to actually volunteer it would have a much more sizable impact
> (again, a guess.)
>
> Anyone got data on #eligible vs. #volunteered?
>
> Lars
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> To: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:25:58 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 (fwd)
> Scott Mansfield: RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>