-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/01/15 19:03, Michael Richardson wrote: > So I would keep the 3/5 in-person meetings to *become* nomcom > eligible. > > Once eligible, the rules for remaining eligible would be > different. I like that. Given that remote participation is likely to continue changing and hopefully improving in the coming years, if we do go down this road I think it'd be good to figure some way to allow the rules for continued eligibility to be changed without having to update the BCP. That could be a task given to the IESG or someone other I* group or the current nomcom could set the rule for the next. I don't care which of those, but maybe the last would be best, as nomcom members may know best what's needed, (though some form of appeal against a nomcom getting themselves all back next year would be needed:-) Also, if we go there then I'd prefer that we apply that new rule retrospectively as well so folks who were ever nomcom eligible could "re-establish" that via participation any time. (Unless that caused some tooling problem in checking eligibility after someone volunteers.) S. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUsCtRAAoJEC88hzaAX42iHgEH/j1SF85f4GfbOCvIAT8aJLjd xVJijAaOuJt2rHwpjJxJSZPw9fGBwXE0haMKG7JGFRCC4eAr43LnNFzGiD7FuEga yY7PJMfVGK1dMCUD+6E3yrfUPtiuT8I+67Ml9kJl9oW+Htb+HFzJKaq3pTfgG1N9 hNbPUKkvkWfOwIJeuw5U7IeSbYGxzLDsR1y6w3Isx7eKBzG4wJxB75VLEc1j5n/X V9Qctk1OlOW/zBdkkapONJ5dUe5p6T5kb0pkL/pBIYEdaarMs8IgY+4hL4N9iI4V YttSKNxQ9RtgBOuT0DlVyb2tJSG6FWQYtmRUfqUgwa7oTPRnvDSZShcZZF9EdHk= =HqpJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----