Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 18:46 -0700 S Moonesamy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> We can rationalize why we have no choice other than to
> disenfranchise some participants or we can do something
> meaningful.  When there isn't meaningful participation people
> get frustrated, people get angry, people walk away.  None of
> those, in my opinion, make the IETF process better; what
> happens is the contrary.  It is very difficult to reach
> agreement when people believe that they are being treated
> unfairly.

One small addition which I would have mentioned except that its
most recent incarnation came up after I had written and sent my
note.

People here have essentially claimed that we don't know how to
define "participant" except in terms of meeting registration
attendance.   Yet, for IPR purposes, we are comfortable defining
participation in terms of Contributions and Contributions
certainly do not require meeting attendance (see recent
discussion on the ietf-ipr list).  That inconsistency,
especially when it works to drag more "participants" in where
our IPR policies are concerned but to exclude where leadership
selection and related issues are concerned is the sort of things
that amuses lawyers.  We should not be amused, nor should we
seek to amuse them. 

While some Contributions are obviously more valuable and
relevant than others, perhaps one of the tools we haven't
explored as part of a model of adequate participation is our
Contribution definition.

best,
    john