Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 6/27/2021 4:53 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, after reviewing RFC 8989, I think there may be an issue 
> with my qualifications.
>
> At the 110 meeting, although I was registered (and got the T-shirt, 
> thank you) I was unable to attend any working group meeting or plenary 
> session. (Mainly time-zone issues).
>
> I did try gather.town but didn’t find anyone to talk to.
>
> Personally, I liked the idea of being on the nomcom after so many 
> years, but perhaps reviewing actual participation (even just asking 
> each volunteer to assert actual participation) might bring the process 
> closer to its intent.
>
Nah!

The problem with the approach you propose is lack of evidentiary 
information to make a decision.  E.g. nobody self-reports their 
participation, nor is such self-reporting required.

Instead, we look at objective data - in this case the registration 
record - to determine eligibility.  In some cases, we're going to take 
someone as eligible with little actual interaction with the IETF, but  - 
I think - that's better than trying to make subjective judgements about 
who did "enough" in the meeting to qualify.   I sort of agree with you 
and argued for some contribution from the participant to make such 
things expensive. But that's not we are currently structured, and I'm 
mostly OK with that.

Mike