-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 There was a long discussion of Day Passes in 2010, and it lead to this IESG statement: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/nomcom-eligibility-and-day-passes.html In my view, this was the right decision. We need people that have been exposed to the IETF culture. Russ On Jan 9, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > I would like to change the nomcom eligibility criteria. > SM has proposed some things awhile ago in: > draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-01 > > kept the current rules of 3/5, but added options where > the "3rd" meeting could really be in the form either having > been to a lot of meetings, or having used day-passes.. > > 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: > 0) attend the meeting in person. > 1) be a document shepherd or working group chair on a document > that entered AUTH48. > 2) be the document uploader (pressed submit) on a document that > was scheduled into a WG session. (A document authors that has > never been to a meeting would never have become eligible. If > document authors want to rotate who submits, that actually > seems like a good idea if it keeps their hand in, as I've had to almost > stalk some co-authors during AUTH48 who seem to have fallen off the > planet) > 3) opened a ticket on a document that was scheduled into a WG session. > 4) scribed for the I* telechats. > > 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. > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ > ] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlSwXXgACgkQiuTu0PWcEcujzwCeMR8jQ2DaD2sDzZh7wxKca9c/ A+EAnA66O9Ov2cGxuO/8xn1eu9v3u7GS =wdx9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----