John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> The other remote participation issue that would need to be sorted out
> for Nomcom eligibility and service is that my impression is that the
> Nomcom depends a lot on f2f or at least on having enough members
> present at key meetings to staff interviews, etc. "Has been
> participating remotely, but can promise to physically attend several
> meetings in a row if selected" would be a rather different requirement
> from "Has been participating remotely and intends to participate
> remotely in the Nomcom". Michael and others who have been more
> directly involved might want to reflect on that difference and the
> feasibility of the second, but that might evolve with remote
> participation arrangements too and I'm pretty sure we aren't ready to
> make decisions about it now.
I, and a number of others (Melinda and Joe Abley comes to mind. Joe and I
stayed up all night once trying to make mbone work for us...), throughout the
naughties, attended around a single meeting a year...
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [