--On Friday, January 09, 2015 14:03 -0500 Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > I don't think SM's proposal does the right thing. > My concern is primarily about people who enter our culture, > and then for some reason are unable to travel. (Could be > health, could be inability to get VISAs, could be funding, > could be children) > > 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 would propose something like having *contributed* > to at least two meetings in the past four. We could come up > with complex or simple rules on what it means to contribute, > we could automated it, and we can discuss all the ways that > various rules could be gamed. My ideas for contribution would > include: >... I like this. A lot. > Note that I have avoided counting "remote attendance" > activities specifically, because that would require us to > figure out who attended and register them, etc. and I don't > think we are ready for that yet. I am very sympathetic to (my interpretation of) SM's concern that there are people who participate sufficiently remotely that it is clear that the have more knowledge of the type one would like on the Nomcom then lots of community members who are eligible under the 3/5 in person rule. I agree with you that his formulation isn't quite right and that we aren't ready to formulate a good rule. I've also suggested before that, if someone is going to participate remotely, rather than attending/lurking remotely, we really need to have them registered for one of the same reasons we require attendees to register -- knowing who is influencing standards development is an important part of an open standardization process and just can't be done remotely. But we haven't done that, so the "not ready" part of your comment is correct. Let me suggest another way to deal with that combination of conclusions, which is, IMO, consistent with the above and part of Stephen's ideas/comments. Let's assume in this revision that, longer-term, there may be multiple ways to become Nomcom eligible, not just a single formula. Let's adopt something like your "become eligible and retain eligible" formulation as method #1. Then let's be sure that the document can be "updated" by some possible future thing that lays out remote participation rules and conventions (again, I don't care about lurkers and personally think we need to preserve the ability to lurk anonymously) by specifying criteria for _them_ to be Nomcom eligible. Where I disagree with Stephen is that I don't want bodies who have members selected by the Nomcom to be able to specific Nomcom membership criteria or to delegate that job to some purpose-specific committee. Even if the actual risks are low, the optics are terrible and the normal community consensus procedures should be involved. But maybe requiring an update to the BCP but avoiding a requirement to open the base specification would respond to part --I think the most important part, but he may disagree-- of that concern. john