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

[Joel <[e-mail]>]

As a minor point, I would probably be significantly more supportive of a 
step that relaxed the rules for recall signers.  Being involved is much 
more important than knowing the culte for the question of judging 
whether someone has done something they shouldn't ave.

Yours,
Joel

PS: Addressing the efficacy of remote participation is a fine thing.  It 
is not something I have a clue how to do, and not a topic for the nomcom 
list.

On 6/26/2013 3:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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/
>
>