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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Abdussalam,
At 22:18 28-06-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>I think the draft still needs more details, for example, the Abstract
>says to give remote contributors eligible to serve but how many
>remote, it is not-reasonable/not-practical to have most remote, and it
>is not fare/diverse to have all not remote. Furthermore, you did not

I will work on the text in the Introduction section and change the 
Abstract accordingly.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>AB> you need to define *remote contributor* in the draft. When the

I received similar feedback from other people.

>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.

>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.

>Where are the five meetings (is it a f2f meeting?)and what kind of
>contributing you are asking?

The five meetings are defined in RFC 3777.

>I really want to focus questions related to the new draft not other
>issues. Therefore, I think the draft needs to involve what was
>discussed on the list (feedback). Updating this RFC procedure may need

I take all feedback about a draft into account.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy