Hi Eliot. I agree this is a problem ... but not one that we can solve yet. At this time the face-to-face meetings are still essential, and one cannot evaluate candidates without good knowledge of what an I* member's life is like at them. If/when we manage to reduce the significance of the face-to-face meetings, then we can and should change nomcom membership requirements. Scott Excerpts from Eliot Lear at 07:56:48 +0100 on Fri 9 Jan 2009: > Dear all, > > I don't know about other companies, but mine has pretty tight travel > restrictions right now. I do not yet know if I will make the San > Francisco IETF or Stockholm. I suspect attendance at both will be way > down, but it's a hunch. If others are in the same position, it will > lead to a potential problem with the NOMCOM, which is that the pool of > eligible volunteers may shrink to an unacceptably low number. It seems > to me we already had problems getting a large enough pool in good times. > > And so my questions: > > 1. Do others agree that this is likely to be a problem? > > [Stop here if no.] > > 2. If so, what should be done about it? > > There are a couple of alternatives: > > 1. Increase the number of meetings we look at to determine pool size. > 2. Expand the criteria based on other means (like authorship, mailing > list activity, virtual meeting participation, etc). > 3. Other > > Comments? > > Eliot > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf