Hi Brian, Note that I did not suggest that commenting/reviewing drafts should be a criteria for NONCOM eligibility. I was simply arguing that there are other ways to care about IETF than being draft author :) Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: tiistai 29. kesäkuuta 2021 1.19 To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Eligibility criteria [Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom] On 28-Jun-21 21:56, Christer Holmberg 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. I suggest people review those discussions, which are somewhere in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/ Brian > > Regards, > > Christer > > >> On 27 Jun 2021, at 07:12, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> Thus, we got fewer volunteers despite substantially broadening the criteria to include many more people. >
