Re: [ietf-nomcom] Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00)

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Moonesamy,

I support this work and my comments below;

On 6/29/13, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>mention diversity in the draft related to members selected.
>
> The text in the draft is about IETF participants who were at the
> meeting site and IETF participants who were not at the meeting
> site.  The draft mentioned that some IETF participants cannot be in
> the room at the meeting site as they cannot afford the cost of
> travelling to that location.

IETF People are in the IETF-Rooms either physically or
virtually/remote, so all participants that SHOULD get this I-D's
Eligibility they SHOULD attend rooms physicaly/remotely for the five
meetings. The IETF has to get a system ready to register
remote-participants attending ROOMS, but we may need a condition on
how many rooms that thoes participants SHOULD attend and/or for how
long.

Please note that people may not attend meetings because their special
needs, you may add this important reason that the IETF needs to look
at giving chance to disabilities.

>
>>AB> I prefer if you refer me, or the discussion list chair can refer
>>me to somewhere we can discuss this new draft. Please note that I was
>>told not to post more discuss messages on this list, so the chair or
>>you are required to respond on this issue related to discussing the
>>draft, because this may be my last post regarding this I-D.
>
> I suggest using the [e-mail] mailing list for discussions
> of possible revisions of the NomCom process.

Thanks,

>
>>AB> the update may need an informational draft (or better
>>introduction) like what [1] is doing, so if we know the information on
>>process challenges we will know the best practice. I like the [1]
>>draft I think it needs to be renewed including remote members
>>possibilities.
>
> I am not the author of that draft.  The draft I submitted is
> unrelated to that draft.

It is ok, I recommend using the information or the challenges
mentioned, but If it was not renewed then I will do it,

>>Section 2> The section is not reasonable because you changed with no
>>strong reasons. Why you want to change totally, I recommend to add
>>idea not change. As to give opportunity to additional memebrs that are
>>remote. These additional memebrs will have a special condition. This
>>way you don't change the conditions for the current procedure of
>>selecting f2f memebrs, and you may limit the number of remote
>>contributors maybe 10 % of the total memebrs.
>
> The why is mentioned in the Introduction Section of the draft.  The
> draft updates RFC 3777.

I ment that you should not update the way to select, but only update
that way of selecting new remote memebrs to the f2f attending memebrs.

>
>>AB> suggest in Section 2> I suggest not to update the text of the RFC
>>but to add new rule for selecting few remote participants.
>
> I have been looking into that.

Ok, so I understand that you will do something for this special type
of memebr selected. So the nomcom memebrs will not be all the same
type, most selected the old way and some memebrs (remote) as selected
in a special way.

I recommend you request to join one author of RFC3777 to co-author
with you this work to because we may get more history issues that
thoes authors went through,

AB