Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

I actually think the discussion is still ongoing, and I I'm unsure that
all the threads have really resolved.
Let me try and summarize bits of the discussion I've seen:

* We'd like to encourage remote participation to grow our community;
  lots of discussion of fees and tool quality

* It's not clear that  this has reached a level where we'd know what to
  say about the BCP.

* A lot of people seem to believe that our current tools are good enough
  that members of our community can meaningfully participate for some
  meetings of the year remotely.

* I've not seen a claim that those members cannot follow the IETF well
  enough to participate in the nomcom.

* It's not clear how well enabling those folks to continue participating
  in the nomcom furthers the goal of diversity of nomcom.  It's not
  clear whether we care for the discussion at hand; there may be other
  reasons to relax the nomcom criteria that apply, haven't really seen
  enough discussion to tell what our consensus is there.


It sounds like we're probably not in a position with the tools today
that you could join the ietf community and participate well enough to be
a good nomcom member purely remotely.

So, I think we're left with a number of questions:

1) Do we want to write forward-looking requirements for nomcom.  That
is, do we want to be more open than our tools would support today in
writing nomcom eligibility?

2)  Do we want to allow folks  who are participants already to have more
relaxed participation requirements (some remotely) for nomcom
eligibility?

3) If the answer to two is yes, should they still have to attend
in-person meetings from time to time?  If so how often?

4)  Do we want to allow those who have become members of our community
remotely--chaired working groups, met some criteria--who have done the
work to become significantly involved remotely even though it is hard to
be eligible for nomcom?

In conclusion, I think we've had a good wide-ranging discussion here,
but I think it's time for the doc shepherd (not someone writing text,
but someone chairing the discussion) to actually come along and chair.
I've taken a loose stab above but would be happy to step aside for
whoever actually has that responsibility.