Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

This thread died off without reaching consensus on how eligibility would be
measured beyond the 3/5 rule.  In particular:

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
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.
>

I definitely get the intent here and I see that a lot of people like the
idea, but the details seem to fall short to me so far.  Can we bang on it a
little more so I can come up with text to include?

Setting aside for the moment what exactly we consider "contributed", here's
a hypothetical:

For IETF 92, one would become eligible by attending at least three of IETFs
87, 88, 89, 90, and 91, just like it has been all along.  Now I'm
"eligible".  Does that last forever, or should it expire after some period,
requiring another 3/5 in-person to restore eligibility?  (I'm reminded of
non-airline pilot re-certification, which at least in the US has to be done
every two years regardless of how much you have or have not been flying.)

Let's suppose it's perpetual, and then I disappear for three years (nine
meetings).  Now I reappear at IETF 104, which will probably be in
Minneapolis.  Since IETF 91, I opened a single ticket on a document in
DNSOP around the time of IETF 100, and I acted as IAOC scribe once around
the time of IETF 103.  I have paid no attention whatsoever in the
intervening years to ietf@, to any administrative or technical plenary,
gone to any of the working groups or training sessions (even remotely),
participated in no hallway track discussions, and not otherwise engaged in
any way.  Should I be eligible to serve on the NomCom as a selecting member?

-MSK