Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
Yeah, but that's why I wrote that the document uploader (pressed submit) on a
document that *was scheduled into a WG session*
So, it requires that the WG chair be involved, and thus there is a system of
account.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature