Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 09/01/15 19:03, Michael Richardson wrote:
> So I would keep the 3/5 in-person meetings to *become* nomcom 
> eligible.
> 
> Once eligible, the rules for remaining eligible would be
> different.

I like that.

Given that remote participation is likely to continue changing
and hopefully improving in the coming years, if we do go down
this road I think it'd be good to figure some way to allow the
rules for continued eligibility to be changed without having
to update the BCP. That could be a task given to the IESG or
someone other I* group or the current nomcom could set the rule
for the next. I don't care which of those, but maybe the last
would be best, as nomcom members may know best what's needed,
(though some form of appeal against a nomcom getting themselves
all back next year would be needed:-)

Also, if we go there then I'd prefer that we apply that new
rule retrospectively as well so folks who were ever nomcom
eligible could "re-establish" that via participation any time.
(Unless that caused some tooling problem in checking
eligibility after someone volunteers.)

S.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUsCtRAAoJEC88hzaAX42iHgEH/j1SF85f4GfbOCvIAT8aJLjd
xVJijAaOuJt2rHwpjJxJSZPw9fGBwXE0haMKG7JGFRCC4eAr43LnNFzGiD7FuEga
yY7PJMfVGK1dMCUD+6E3yrfUPtiuT8I+67Ml9kJl9oW+Htb+HFzJKaq3pTfgG1N9
hNbPUKkvkWfOwIJeuw5U7IeSbYGxzLDsR1y6w3Isx7eKBzG4wJxB75VLEc1j5n/X
V9Qctk1OlOW/zBdkkapONJ5dUe5p6T5kb0pkL/pBIYEdaarMs8IgY+4hL4N9iI4V
YttSKNxQ9RtgBOuT0DlVyb2tJSG6FWQYtmRUfqUgwa7oTPRnvDSZShcZZF9EdHk=
=HqpJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----