--On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 16:42 -0500 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.
> Let me try and summarize bits of the discussion I've seen:
>...
> So, I think we're left with a number of questions:
I generally agree with Sam's summary; let me add two questions
to his four:
(5) Independent of Nomcom eligibility issues, do we need to be
explicit that those who volunteer to serve are making a
commitment to be physically present for specific meetings during
their term and, if so, which meetings?
(6) Whatever Nomcom eligibility requirements emerge from this
process, are they appropriate for all of the other things for
which we use Nomcom eligibility as a surrogate for
"participating adequately to do whatever this is"?
> 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.
+1
john