Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The fact that the nomcom eligibility rules are attendance rather than participation is a bug. It was known to be a bug when it was written. Okay, if one wants to be picky, it was known to be a mediocre heuristic approximation for what was desired.)

The challenge has been to find rules that capture the range of exposure / participation that would actually provide good background for leadership selection.

We could not do so when we wrote the rules.
Maybe we can now.  I would love to see better rules.
The challenge for me is telling that a proposed rule set has a reasonable chance (there is no sure thing here) of being better. That is part of what prompted the exchange with Michael about data.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/13/15 12:44 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On 13 February 2015 at 15:58, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


    Sure, I appreciate that human contact is important. I've been to
    two IETF meetings in the flesh, and I enjoy, and have had
    significant benefit from, hallway conversations.

    But to claim it's "the most important thing", and to further imply
    that no other IETF participation or activity should count for
    anything is just astonishing.

    I said no such thing.  I said that NomCom members need to understand
    the culture, and that participation in the meetings is an important
    aspect of learning that culture.  In my view, this is confirmed by
    the survey results.

...
a) The NomCom eligibility rules do not emphasize meeting
*participation*, but meeting attendance.

b) The NomCom eligibility rules do not *emphasize* meeting attendance,
they *are* meeting attendance.
...





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]