Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:-)
That's why I wrote "contribution" --- we could imagine some system of points,
with the datatracker being the scoreboard, but I'm not clear that we need an
particularly complex system or overly restrictive system.
> 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.)
Perhaps one can become ineligible without loosing eligibility for a period
of time... we could have a long integration time...
But, if one totally looses eligibility, then the reason why I think one has
to do more attendance in person is because things *do* change over
time. 3-step vs 2-step. Creation of IAOC. Use of jabber+streamed mp3 vs
meetecho vs using multicast and vat. The rise of webrtc... How much of this
matters to the nomcom, is unclear; but one definitely gets more
cross-polination by being in the hallway, than by being in the hallway chat.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature