Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

The fact that the nomcom eligibility rules are attendance rather than 
participation is a bug.  It was known to be a bug when it was written.
Okay, if one wants to be picky, it was known to be a mediocre heuristic 
approximation for what was desired.)

The challenge has been to find rules that capture the range of exposure 
/ participation that would actually provide good background for 
leadership selection.

We could not do so when we wrote the rules.
Maybe we can now.  I would love to see better rules.
The challenge for me is telling that a proposed rule set has a 
reasonable chance (there is no sure thing here) of being better.  That 
is part of what prompted the exchange with Michael about data.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/13/15 12:44 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 13 February 2015 at 15:58, Russ Housley <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>>     Sure, I appreciate that human contact is important. I've been to
>>     two IETF meetings in the flesh, and I enjoy, and have had
>>     significant benefit from, hallway conversations.
>>
>>     But to claim it's "the most important thing", and to further imply
>>     that no other IETF participation or activity should count for
>>     anything is just astonishing.
>
>     I said no such thing.  I said that NomCom members need to understand
>     the culture, and that participation in the meetings is an important
>     aspect of learning that culture.  In my view, this is confirmed by
>     the survey results.
>
...
> a) The NomCom eligibility rules do not emphasize meeting
> *participation*, but meeting attendance.
>
> b) The NomCom eligibility rules do not *emphasize* meeting attendance,
> they *are* meeting attendance.
...