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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 6/26/2013 11:55 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> At 10:35 26-06-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Since both of you cited my comments and since they were intentionally
>> extremely narrow, I'll broaden them just a bit:
>
> I should have picked the entire message or provided context.  Sorry
> about that.

But I wasn't complaining.  In fact my original comment offered very 
little context, because I was trying to be quite narrow in the comment.

I merely took the two references as an excuse for me to elaborate 
further in this morning's note.


>> 6. The proposal that I floated some years ago was to allocate /a
>> portion/ of the nomcom membership to a pool of nomcom volunteers who
>> had a history of principal contribution.  One can debate the details
>> of course, but plausible experience could be RFC author, WG Chair,
>> member of IAB, IESG or IAOC.  That's just an exemplar list; I'm not
>> trying to propose it as /the/ list.
>
> I am not sure whether I read that proposal.

It was a long time ago.  My summary here contained its essential elements.


>> 9. One could easily imagine that previous experience at having been a
>> principal, with continued active participation, but a lack of recent
>> attendance, could mean that a nomcom volunteer is actually a far
>> better nomcom participant than many of those who qualify by the
>> current simplistic criterion.
>
> This one is interesting.  I would say that the above rhymes with the
> word "participatory".  My sense is that you said something which I have
> been unable to explain.

I'd apologize for having said something useful, but then you'd probably 
think I was complaining...

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net