Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Jim,
On 16-Mar-20 08:23, Jim Fenton wrote:
> On 3/13/20 6:43 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> One choice is to entirely ignore 107 for the purposes of NomCom
>> eligibility.  The last five meetings would then be 106, 105, 104, 103,
>> and 102, and one would have had to attend three of those to be
>> eligible this year.
>>
>> Another choice is to consider 107 to be a meeting that everyone has
>> attended, for the purpose of NomCom eligibility.  There, the last five
>> would still be 107 to 103, but 107 would be an automatic “yes” for
>> anyone who volunteers for the NomCom.
>>
> I support counting 107 registered remote attendees toward NomCom
> eligibility, with no session attendance requirement (such as the
> Plenary). The requirement for session attendance is only meaningful if
> we expect people--who have attended two of the other meetings in the
> window--to game the eligibility system by registering with no intent to
> actually participate. I don't think that's a significant problem.

Unfortunately I have to disagree. We know for a fact that some companies
have actively encouraged employees to volunteer for NomCom in the past.
That's been happening over many years with a variety of companies. I fear
this would happen even more with an even lower barrier.

Simply leaving 107 out of the count seems fairest to me.

[For the record, I believe that I would be eligible with or without 107.
So I have no skin in this particular game.]

    Brian