Re: [ietf-nomcom] Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility - draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-01

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

At 08:13 30-07-2013, Michael Richardson wrote:
>But, it doesn't even mention document authors, so it's a poor place to get a
>list of active people.  Either it could be improved, or another thing could
>be used.

I would like to avoid creating an incentive for more names in the 
author list.  I'll try your suggestion (grep mailbox).

> From 1996 until 2005, when my son was born, I was nomcom-eligible by the old
>rules.   Between 2004 and mid-2012 I was not nomcom eligible.
>I certainly was at 15 meetings prior to 2005.
>Did I attend 2 meetings in the last 5?
>In 2006, I would have remained eligible.
>Between 2007 and 2010 I would have remained in-eligible.
>(I attended more than half of those remotely, and reviewed lots of IPsec WG
>documents, and became involved in ROLL)
>In 2011 I was not eligible according to current rules, but I would have been
>eligible under your rule 1 meeting earlier.

There will be cases, as mentioned above, where a person will not be 
NomCom-eligible.  I do not think that it is not relevant.  The 
previous questions were to try and get a sense of what people 
consider as making the difference.

>     > - Will it help people with experience be NomCom-eligible?
>
>it is better than before, but not significantly.

I read "not significantly" as meaning that it does not make the 
difference between now and what is being proposed.

At 08:52 30-07-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>In the meantime, subscribing is never wrong ...

I am subscribed. :-)  My message triggered an anti-abuse rule.  That 
is why it went to the moderation queue.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy