On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm confused how you came up with four years.
You said:
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
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
...and I remembered "years" instead of "meetings" for some reason. Still, the things you suggested as qualifying contributions don't account for some other things that I would argue should qualify. For instance: Requiring that I be the submitting author on a document that got WG time disregards valuable documents that never needed in-person WG time. The same goes for the point about opening a ticket against a document that got WG time.
Even better, contributing to the IETF in meaningful ways is not always tied to meetings. Some working group chairs and editors do great work for WGs that never even meet. Nothing ever gets agenda time in those.
The speed with which something gets to AUTH48 isn't always reliable. I'm not sure making that a gating factor would work so well; I could lose my eligibility just because some directorate review took way too long to come in.
To repeat: I recognize that we like the general idea here, and I agree. I'm just having trouble coming up with ways to qualify that aren't difficult to describe precisely and completely and don't needlessly exclude people that probably should qualify.
-MSK