Hi Sam,
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I actually think the discussion is still ongoing, and I I'm unsure that
all the threads have really resolved.
I think that's exactly my point, plus maybe trying to converge on text to change in the BCP might help us toward resolution.
Your summary points also match my understanding, so I won't repeat them here.
So, I think we're left with a number of questions:
1) Do we want to write forward-looking requirements for nomcom. That
is, do we want to be more open than our tools would support today in
writing nomcom eligibility?
I think that would be a good idea at a minimum, if we can't come up with new volunteer requirements right away.
2) Do we want to allow folks who are participants already to have more
relaxed participation requirements (some remotely) for nomcom
eligibility?
The consensus for that seems to be yes, though the challenge is nailing down a new set of relaxed participation requirements on which there's consensus. In many cases the metrics I've seen are related to meetings, or getting time on meeting agendas, etc., but that seems rather arbitrary given that there's plenty of WG activity that never lands on agendas because they don't need face time. There were some attempts to tie participation to a document reaching AUTH48, but that too is arbitrary because a document might not even pass the IESG because of laggy directorate or expert reviews. On the flipside, there are some WGs that go inactive for long periods of time, so perhaps they shouldn't count as "participation" in between meetings.
3) If the answer to two is yes, should they still have to attend
in-person meetings from time to time? If so how often?
Good question. Clearly the intent is for it to be less than 3/5, at least for some period of time. Michael suggested you qualify initially by attending 3/5, but then as long as you keep up some lesser criteria, you remain qualified. Attending meetings is among those, but it's not the only way to stay qualified. Again, though, we need to hammer out the continued qualification details.
4) Do we want to allow those who have become members of our community
remotely--chaired working groups, met some criteria--who have done the
work to become significantly involved remotely even though it is hard to
be eligible for nomcom?
More precisely: Should they be able to become selecting members of the NomCom? They will have to be able to participate in the multiple interviews and other meetings that tend to take place during meetings.
In conclusion, I think we've had a good wide-ranging discussion here,
but I think it's time for the doc shepherd (not someone writing text,
but someone chairing the discussion) to actually come along and chair.
I've taken a loose stab above but would be happy to step aside for
whoever actually has that responsibility.
Absent the Sergeant-at-Arms or an IESG member stepping up to moderate this thread, I think that falls to me as the editor, and that's exactly what I was trying to do here.
I propose that if we can't come up with a new set of criteria right away, a very clear statement ought to be added to Section 4.14 saying that this needs to be revisited "soon", as remote participation tools improve, so that there isn't a continued bias toward well-funded participants among those selecting the IETF's leadership.
-MSK