Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Melinda Shore > <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 2/13/15 8:44 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > Moreover, if you accept >> that the word "culture" is effectively > indistinguishable to >> outsiders from the term "status quo" (though the > intent is obviously >> different), it's really quite revealing. All this > "preserving the >> culture" talk comes out in an entirely different light. >> >> I think this is a really important comment. I mean, *really* >> important comment. >> > Bringing us back to the draft under discussion: > It sounds to me like our policies and tools around remote participation > haven't evolved yet to the point where we can set down some serious > NomCom eligibility criteria different from what's there now. By that > I'm not in any way saying that these aren't important things to sort > out, just that it's not possible at the moment to come to consensus on > what exact changes we should make. > I suppose another way to look at that is: I have no idea what to write > in terms of replacement text for the current Section 4.14 of BCP 10 > that reflects a consensus here. Does anyone else want to take a stab > at it? I've been super-busy on a dozen fronts, but I've been reading every message on this thread. I don't know if it is urgent get this text done this week. I might propose that we ask for a BOF; but an in-person discussion would be self-selecting. It might be that having a virtual interim meeting after Dallas would make more sense. What if we had some kind of remote attendee summit? I don't think that the quality of the tools or the question of fee or not should prevent us from considering if there is a way to change the manner in which ones remains eligible. As written, I don't think that Dave Cridland would ever become eligible again (since that would still be 3/5), nor, I think were he already eligible, that he'd remain so, because you still have to attend 1 meeting/year to remain eligible. {It has become clear to me in thinking about this, that we need to make sure we figure out when we measure properly} -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature