Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Last year we had 135 volunteers, under the temporary criteria of
> RFC8788, which were basically the traditional criteria but set back by
> one meeting, i.e. physical attendance at 3 of IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105,
> and 106.
> This year we have 112 volunteers, under the experimental criteria of
> RFC8989. Those are
> a) registered attendance at 3 of IETFs 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110. OR
> b) being a recent WG Chair or Secretary or RFC author.
Brian, given that you have the list of people, is it an easy thing to run
through the Venn diagram and tell us if RFC8989 had any effect?
Should this discussion continue on gendispatch or shmoo or ??
> Thus, we got fewer volunteers despite substantially broadening the
> criteria to include many more people.
> This requires some reflection, but we can't arbitrarily change the
> mandated schedule.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
