[Eligibility-discuss] ways to advance the discussion

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

1) I think that we need to have a virtual interim/design-team meeting.
   On the one hand, I see the next month as rather full of other meetings,
   and I'm loath to try to fit something in the next ten days, on the
   other hand, I think that there is some urgency to this.
   We aren't a WG ... do we have a convenor for this list?
   My observation of who is active on this topic is that the people are
   -0400 (eastern), -0700 (pacific) and +13 (NZ).
   https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20200330&p1=188&p2=22&p3=224
   I could post a doodle, looks like late afternoon eastern works.

2) A key discussion point is defense against gaming of the system.
   I suggest that any proposal capture that discussion/concern in it's
   Security Considerations.
   I don't think we can come up with a system that is game-proof, but I think
   that we can probably agree about what the cost of gaming a particular
   system is.
   (I note that in the randomized selection criteria for nomcom suggests
   somewhere that if someone can game all the inputs, then they probably are
   so rich and well connected, that they don't need to.  So, like the various
   big physics experiments, we can never say particle X does not exist, but
   rather that it does not exist with mass < X, etc.)

3) A second key discussion point is the extent that we are trying to be more
   inclusive of different patterns of participation, vs that we are trying to
   "simply" find a way to recognize the current ways of particiation, given
   that we are remote.
   Guess what: this looks like a problem statement dispute.

4) There a number of proposals to change how the nomcom is selected from the
   pool, or to change the way the pool is managed during section, or the
   restrict entry to the pool based upon the contents of the pool.
   Some suggest that doing two changes is a bad experiment, while others
   have suggested that not making additional changes is effectively not
   properly controlling the experiment (I'm paraphrasing them)

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-