--On Monday, June 28, 2021 19:45 +1000 Lloyd W
<lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think the criteria will need to be extended to include
> primary authors of active internet-drafts.
>
> If you care enough about the IETF to have actively submitted a
> draft in the last six months (and I do!), then you care about
> nomcom.
LLoyd,
If I were an organization that actively wanted to "game" the
Nomcom, I'd have all or my employees submit I-Ds. Remember that
we have no content requirements on I-Ds such that one that are
obviously completely irrelevant be taken down. There aren't
even rules against duplication. Hence, ignoring boilerplate and
the like. Hence...
---
Network WG J. Doe
Evil Co
Flowers and the Internet
[...[
The flowers that bloom in the
spring, tra la ...
[...[
Introduction
The flowers that bloom in the ...
[...]
Security Considerations
Many people have allergies to some types of
spring flowers
[...]
You get the idea. And that would be almost equally true of
Christer's suggestion except I then wonder if easily-measured
criteria such as TL;DR and TSFCA:TITT* would need to be
considered. Unless we were to set up a content-monitoring
committee to determine which I-Ds or reviews are substantive
enough to be counted, we'd end up needing to determine what
counts.
That is the beauty of the existing pool and randomization setup.
While any of us can figure out a way to game it (and it may need
tweaking if, intentionally or not, someone does), it is
objective and very simple, with no elements of "does this
count". I don't imagine there are many of us who actually like
it or wish it did some things better, but there it is.
best,
john
