Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I guess I'm old-time minded here, what is wrong with 3 meetings out
> of 5, and if you want co-authored document.

The main issue with three out of five is that it discriminates against people who can't attend that often but are actively involved in the IETF.   E.g., you have kids, or you have a family member with an illness who needs care, so you stay home for a year, and suddenly you're disenfranchised, even though you were actively involved in the IETF that whole time.

>> As for Loa's question about why someone who hasn't done real IETF work
>> would want to volunteer, the answer is politics and/or ego.  They or
>> their company might want to hold sway over nomcom or the person might
>> just want to add this to their resume.
> 
> With due respect - I don't think this is how it work, do we have any
> running code? Our rules so far has not stopped anyone form paying and
> register, sit at the back of a a couple of wg meetings and three IETF
> meetings later drop his/her name into the hat. But has it happened?

The operation of each nomcom are pretty opaque to those who are not on it.   For those who have interacted with a nomcom as candidates, such an impression might exist.   It's possible that nomcom liaisons or chairs could speak to this.   However, since nomcom proceedings are supposed to be confidential, I don't know how much they could really say.   Because these properties of the nomcom are intentional and useful, it does make sense to be particularly careful about how nomcom eligibility is determined and not just trust to peoples' good natures.