Eligibility criteria [Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 28-Jun-21 21:56, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> 
>> I think the criteria will need to be extended to include primary authors of active internet-drafts.
>>
>> If you care enough about the IETF to have actively submitted a draft in the last six months (and I do!), then you care about nomcom.
> 
> I think one can care equally enough about the IETF by actively commenting and reviewing drafts authored by others.

I agree in principle. However, both of these criteria were discussed on [e-mail] before finalising RFC8989, and the consensus seemed to be that since they are both trivial to game, we couldn't use them. There's more of a case for qualifying authors of WG-adopted drafts and members of official review teams, but even those didn't get consensus.

I suggest people review those discussions, which are somewhere in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/

   Brian


> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
>> On 27 Jun 2021, at 07:12, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> This year we have 112 volunteers, under the experimental criteria of RFC8989. Those are
>>
>> a) registered attendance at 3 of IETFs 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110.
>> OR
>> b) being a recent WG Chair or Secretary or RFC author.
>>
>> Thus, we got fewer volunteers despite substantially broadening the criteria to include many more people.
>