Inline ...
On Jan 10, 2015 4:31 PM, "Michael StJohns" <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> At 02:30 PM 1/10/2015, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >Occupying a formal role in a WG or directorate,
> >or becoming an IETF-stream RFC author, would be much harder to game.
>
> And unfortunately, more subject to oligarchical abuse as those are chosen by the ADs or WG chairs chosen by the ADs.
>
> How about instead:
>
> Everyone who volunteers for Nomcom must have at least 3 certified and approved instances of being a note taker or jabber scribe for a full set of sessions for a specific working group in the past 5 meetings in addition to attending 3 of 5 meetings. "Approved" means that the notes are complete, correct and readable as viewed by the majority of the WG chairs and editors. "Certified" means that the WG chair(s) heard you volunteer and noted that in the minutes. Notes may be taken in any language, but must be translated to English within a month of the end of the IETF meeting. Multiple note takers may be certified at any given meeting and all notes gleaned from any of them will be added to the meeting record.
>
>
> The above has the advantage that it is a relatively small bar, it provides a benefit to the IETF, and its annoying enough to discourage the run of the mill gamers from participating.
Michael, I think you omitted a significant advantage of this specific proposal - it's something someone DOES, as opposed to something someone IS.
I'm too jet-lagged to think about specifics on the no-doubt excellent proposals in these threads (my plane from Shanghai to DFW landed almost exactly 24 hours ago, and that was my third flight last week), but I'd encourage folks to think of criteria that requires some beneficial action to the Internet community rather than simply holding a position.
We do trip over people from time to time who are no longer able to participate in the IETF, but don't step down from positions until someone asks them to step down.
Thanks, and best wishes to all of you on an important conversation!
Spencer
> The phase in is 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 sessions over the next 5 meetings.
>
> Later, Mike
>
>
>
>