Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
>> I think one can care equally enough about the IETF by actively
>> commenting and reviewing drafts authored by others.
> I agree in principle. However, both of these criteria were discussed on
> eligibility-discuss@xxxxxxxx before finalising RFC8989, and the
> consensus seemed to be that since they are both trivial to game, we
> couldn't use them. There's more of a case for qualifying authors of
> WG-adopted drafts and members of official review teams, but even those
> didn't get consensus.
Let me add, as a proponent for finding ways to formally acknowledge contributors,
what I would like to have occur as we move to XMLv3, is that the
"contributor" meta-data is used universally.
That makes it easier to collect the information mechanically.
We'd then be a better position to understand to what extent it can be gamed.
> I suggest people review those discussions, which are somewhere in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/
:-)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
