Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:03:36PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> So I would keep the 3/5 in-person meetings to *become* nomcom 
> eligible.  

This would be wonderful.  Should this eligibility decay?  For example, I
am probably eligible (to be eligible) by this standard, but it's been a
long time since I attended 3/5 (if I ever did; I'm not sure and I'm not
going to go look it up).

> Once eligible, the rules for remaining eligible would be different.
> I would propose something like having *contributed* to at least two
> meetings in the past four.  We could come up with complex or simple

+1.

Having attended at least one (not just with a day pass) of the past
three meetings seems important: so the NOMCOM members have an idea of
who is who, and 1/3 seems feasible for most participants.  Remote
participation is nice and all (it's mostly my mode of participation
lately), but it's not necessarily enough.

When visa or other issues make 1/3 difficult for some participants then
it could be made 1/4.

> rules on what it means to contribute, we could automated it, and
> we can discuss all the ways that various rules could be gamed.
> My ideas for contribution would include:
>   0) attend the meeting in person.
>   1) be a document shepherd or working group chair on a document
>      that entered AUTH48.
>   2) be the document uploader (pressed submit) on a document that
>      was scheduled into a WG session. (A document authors that has
>      never been to a meeting would never have become eligible. If
>      document authors want to rotate who submits, that actually
>      seems like a good idea if it keeps their hand in, as I've had to almost
>      stalk some co-authors during AUTH48 who seem to have fallen off the
>      planet) 
>   3) opened a ticket on a document that was scheduled into a WG session.
>   4) scribed for the I* telechats.

Yes, except as to (4): scribing often means *just* that; scribes often
fail to grasp what they are scribing.  (There have been studies about
how typing notes during lectures is much worse than writing notes
long-hand, or short-hand even.  I believe these are likely correct and
apply to scribing IETF meetings too.)

> Note that I have avoided counting "remote attendance" activities
> specifically, because that would require us to figure out who attended
> and register them, etc. and I don't think we are ready for that yet.

Yes.

Nico
--