On 11/01/2015 07:33, Michael StJohns wrote:
> At 10:59 AM 1/10/2015, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But we do need - my strongly held opinion - an "objective" one and that's harder to craft with respect to the definition of "contribution". Whereas simply counting meetings is objective and repeatable.
>
>
> To be honest, I foresee a spate of throw away IDs being crafted to be counted as contributions and that might not be all that useful for our process.
Yes, it seems inevitable that any objective criterion that can be met
at low cost will be gamed by people (or companies) that for whatever
reason want to be on Nomcom. Submitting a draft is a very low cost
operation these days. Occupying a formal role in a WG or directorate,
or becoming an IETF-stream RFC author, would be much harder to game.
Brian