Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Discussion: do eligibility paths need to be monitored

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 26/08/2022 20:55, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> what's the probability we end up with a nomcom where
>> N voting members who did not attend a f2f meeting in the
>> relevant timeframe are only eligible under path 1?
 >
> Can you clarify?

Sure.

Path 1 allows for f2f or online attendance, which I support.
Let's ignore the people who were in-person at one or more
relevant meetings and only think about those who qualify via
path 1 but never attended in-person at a relevant meeting.
(And who don't qualify via part 2 or 3.)

For N=1 to 10, I'm asking if we might want to estimate the
probability that we have N such voting members, and whether
we want to worry about that or not.

mcr said:
 > I think that you are dealing with the _6.1.  A Surge of
 > Volunteers_ threat, right?

Not quite. I'm not concerned with a deliberate attack, but
rather about whether we want to worry about the probability
that few of the voting members have recent f2f attendance.
That wasn't an issue with 8989 since we were all online but
could be a thing to consider now.

BTW - I'm not asking we try specify what to do in the event
of such a situation becoming worrisome as that'd be out of
charter. I'm just asking if we want to ask for this to be
monitored, or to establish some threshold that'd cause the
criteria to be revisited.

Cheers,
S.