Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

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

There was a long discussion of Day Passes in 2010, and it lead to this IESG statement:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/nomcom-eligibility-and-day-passes.html

In my view, this was the right decision.  We need people that have been exposed to the IETF culture.

Russ


On Jan 9, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

> 
> I would like to change the nomcom eligibility criteria.
> SM has proposed some things awhile ago in:
>        draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-01
> 
> kept the current rules of 3/5, but added options where
> the "3rd" meeting could really be in the form either having
> been to a lot of meetings, or having used day-passes..
> 
> I don't think SM's proposal does the right thing.
> My concern is primarily about people who enter our culture,
> and then for some reason are unable to travel. (Could be health,
> could be inability to get VISAs, could be funding, could be children) 
> 
> 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 would propose something like having *contributed* to at least two
> meetings in the past four.  We could come up with complex or simple
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> -- 
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
> ]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [ 
> 	

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAlSwXXgACgkQiuTu0PWcEcujzwCeMR8jQ2DaD2sDzZh7wxKca9c/
A+EAnA66O9Ov2cGxuO/8xn1eu9v3u7GS
=wdx9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----