Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: Fw: Last NomCom 2005/06 Call for Volunteers

["JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[e-mail]>]

I understand the attendance criteria, to make sure the concerned 
people have a good IETF culture. However, this is most probably one 
of the reasons of the low of participation of developing countries, 
of users organisations and of the non-commercial funding the RFC 3869 
calls for. Also, some proportion of cultural fresh blood cannot harm. 
Why not to try a non-dangerous 2/3 split: only 2/3 of the nominees 
would have to match the attendance criteria (what could possible have 
a 0 impact on the final outcome, but could also help to analyse the issue).

I would also suggest that, as an international body, every person in 
charge of a responsibility SHOULD speak two languages and be able to 
understand one or two others (this "should" being an objective and 
over the years an accepted obligation). This to better understand the 
non-English participants attitudes and cultures, to respect and help 
their equal opportunity rights, not to take as "anti-American" or 
anti-IETF some innovative  propositions, to be able to benefit from 
other methods of technical thinking, and to understand 
multilingualisation architectural issues, variations, constrains and 
technical opportunities. IMHO the IETF culture needs to make a few 
steps into that direction.

jfc
an IETF deliverables user.


At 22:48 09/10/2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>Three things occur to me
>
>- this  would filter out anyone who is sufficiently ill or  disabled that
>they cannot travel (and might be held to violate the ADA if anyone 
>was really perturbed).
>
>- this would (at present) likely filter out anyone who cannot get a US visa.
>
>- It also may filter out  people inside the US - Stanislav Shulanov 
>told me he was
>not going to Paris as he was not sure he could get back IN the USA, due to
>his  visa status. If the IETF meets abroad next summer, we are 
>looking at 3 non-US meetings in the 4
>from 63 (Paris), 64 (Vancouver), 65 (US), 66 (summer).
>
>Here is a suggestion : 3 or the last 5 or a co-author in a published 
>(or accepted) RFC in the last
>3 years.
>
>Regards
>Marshall Eubanks
>
>On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:17:43 -0400
>  Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >
> > >>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[e-mail]> writes:
> >     >> There is a further bias --- tight travel budgets in the past
> >     >> years have meant that the lower IETF meeting numbers mean fewer
> >     >> are actually elible for nomcom.
> >     >>
> >     >> I buy would like to see the nomcom eligibility guidelines changed
> >     >> a bit.  Perhaps if you qualified at some point in the past for
> >     >> nomcom, that it changes your future elibility criteria.
> >
> >     Harald> I don't think the number of eligible people has dropped very
> >     Harald> much - and we just changed it from "2 out of 3" to "3 out of
> >     Harald> 5", which stretches the period a bit.
> >
> >   That's not my point.
> >   My point is that if you couldn't travel, you become ineligible.
> >   It's hard to know if our pool of people is going up/down, because we
> > don't really know what our total population is.
> >   I think that the secretariat has numbers as to how many are eligible
> > for nomcom each time?
> >
> >     Harald> I wouldn't want to have nomcom people who'd been completely
> >     Harald> out of touch for the last year or more.... and meeting
> >     Harald> attendance is the only objective measure we've come up
> >     Harald> with....
> >
> >   I'm suggesting a more complex measure. For instance, I'm thinking:
> >
> >       You are not eligible until you have been to 3 of 5 consecutive
> >       meetings.         (this makes sure that you have some 
> exposure to the culture)
> >
> >       You remain eligible if your score is >4 (? >5) on the sum of:
> >         1) number of meetings in past 9 (?12)
> >         2) number of groups you chaired in past 9 meetings
> >         3) number of (unique?) internet-drafts you submitted to WG
> >            areas.
> >
> >   Can you imagine being a WG chair without attending a meeting for a
> > year?  Yes, I can.  A WG that is *trying* to push final documents
> > through (so it can close), is not meeting, may actually have VERY
> > RELEVANT input as to recent state of affairs.
> >
> > - --
> > ]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, 
> bovine.           |  firewalls  [
> > ]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, 
> ON    |net architect[
> > ] [e-mail]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ 
> |device driver[
> > ] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, 
> security guy"); [
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Finger me for keys
> >
> > iQCVAwUBQ0l65IqHRg3pndX9AQEz/QP+OsGv0Z875r/ogHbNx94JgpU+9HOhGjvD
> > u1DgEEXTQIK+E2ep5y1BhIPHhCsVHHByijOKKkc3U34uoLyldQTB8gf/ct+At8OT
> > SuUasU2Mi8lSuKyh6sua5LO/KSte/0zQT7TXeB5fQZpAvhf6XjdUAr6TyCKP721M
> > 1CyiSstmVrQ=
> > =0tR2
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pesci-discuss mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pesci-discuss mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss


_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss