On 12/02/2015 09:48, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Being geeks, we have a tendency to invent solutions that > > are theoretically wonderful but quite impractical. The current > > 3/5 rule avoids that and is fairly easy to check algorithmically. > > > I think we need to keep that simplicity as much as possible. So > > something like the following might work. > > > Either > > 3 out of the last 5 meetings > > or > > 3 out of the last 10 meetings and (RFC author or WG Chair or AD in the > > last 5 years) > > When you say "RFC author", I guess you mean something which went through the > process to get a number. I guess that means that having your name on the > front page now has more significant value now. If two IDs merge, now it > matters who is an editor, and who is in "Contributors" at the end... > > I would like to know why my previous list was too long or unclear? For me there is an over-arching consideration: a relatively simple script must be able to generate the list of all qualified volunteers from existing databases. Otherwise the whole process will be impractical. Inevitably that results in a somewhat blunt instrument. Brian > I specifically listed: > > 0) attend the meeting in person. > > 1) be a document shepherd or working group chair on a document > that entered AUTH48. > > "WG chair" was listed above, and I added "that entered AUTH48", because I > wanted to deal with the possible way to game things where a WG is created as > a sinecure. No dead WG. It's the act of going through AUTH48 that I care > about, not who you were. [The authors of the document get caught by 2] > > And I included shepherd, because I want to provide more opportunities for > more people; if you attend meetings rarely, you are unlikely to be visible to > ADs for selection as an WG chair, but shepherds are in short supply. > And all the above things are trivially checked in the datatracker. > > 2) be the document uploader (pressed submit) on a document that > was scheduled into a WG session. > > So anyone can upload at any time. If the WG takes your document on, > then the datatracker clearly knows this, so that part is easy to check. > If you draft-author- is scheduled, this will require some additional > datatracker effort for the WG chairs to indicate that your document goes into > the agenda... but, I we wanted to be able to track which documents were > discussed into which WG anyway for all sorts of reasons, so I think that his > work will already happen. > > 3) opened a ticket on a document that was scheduled into a WG session. > > While the Issue tracker is not well integrated into the datatracker, I know > that many want it to be, and also that many want many other improvements. > Again, knowing that an issue was discussed at a WG session is pretty > important thing to track, I think... so really the datatracker OUGHT to know this. > > 4) scribed for the I* telechats. > > This requires secretariat/I* action to confirm, and is frankly probably my > least interesting way. > > Now, I can see how "AD" could make one eligible, and how an AD after a 6 > year term, could easily become non-eligible having taken a break. But: > > I don't like AD this way because it looks too much like the previous > IESG is selecting the new IESG. Yeah, random selection. > > Since former ADs are well known, often well spoken (thus causing them to > write IDs), and are often asked to join directorates and do reviews > (therefore opening issues), and might even be really really good > shepherds... I prefer rules about what you do, not who you are/were. > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ > ] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ > > > > > > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > >