On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:03:36PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > So I would keep the 3/5 in-person meetings to *become* nomcom > eligible. This would be wonderful. Should this eligibility decay? For example, I am probably eligible (to be eligible) by this standard, but it's been a long time since I attended 3/5 (if I ever did; I'm not sure and I'm not going to go look it up). > Once eligible, the rules for remaining eligible would be different. > I would propose something like having *contributed* to at least two > meetings in the past four. We could come up with complex or simple +1. Having attended at least one (not just with a day pass) of the past three meetings seems important: so the NOMCOM members have an idea of who is who, and 1/3 seems feasible for most participants. Remote participation is nice and all (it's mostly my mode of participation lately), but it's not necessarily enough. When visa or other issues make 1/3 difficult for some participants then it could be made 1/4. > rules on what it means to contribute, we could automated it, and > we can discuss all the ways that various rules could be gamed. > My ideas for contribution would include: > 0) attend the meeting in person. > 1) be a document shepherd or working group chair on a document > that entered AUTH48. > 2) be the document uploader (pressed submit) on a document that > was scheduled into a WG session. (A document authors that has > never been to a meeting would never have become eligible. If > document authors want to rotate who submits, that actually > seems like a good idea if it keeps their hand in, as I've had to almost > stalk some co-authors during AUTH48 who seem to have fallen off the > planet) > 3) opened a ticket on a document that was scheduled into a WG session. > 4) scribed for the I* telechats. Yes, except as to (4): scribing often means *just* that; scribes often fail to grasp what they are scribing. (There have been studies about how typing notes during lectures is much worse than writing notes long-hand, or short-hand even. I believe these are likely correct and apply to scribing IETF meetings too.) > Note that I have avoided counting "remote attendance" activities > specifically, because that would require us to figure out who attended > and register them, etc. and I don't think we are ready for that yet. Yes. Nico --