On 29/08/2015 20:46, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Brian,
>
>
> On 2015-08-28 23:43, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 25/08/2015 16:01, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> Some months ago I started the work of editing a revision to the NomCom
>>> procedures (RFC7437bis). We made progress on some points, but seem to have
>>> stalled on revising the requirements for qualifying to serve on NomCom.
>>>
>>> The draft I have recently expired. Is there any interest in taking another
>>> run at this now? Alternatively, is it worth publishing what we did
>>> accomplish, and leaving that one point for a later attempt?
>>
>> Since you ask, I continue to feel that the 3/5 rule is restrictive for people
>> who have limited travel possibilities but have significant IETF experience.
>> Maybe we could have another week on that question, and then go with what we
>> have (with Harald's tweaks)?
>>
>> So...
>>
>> " Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of
>> the last five IETF meetings in order to volunteer."
>>
>> One quick fix is to change it to "three of the last six" which would
>> allow for a whole year of no travel and would not be hard to administer.
>> Another would be to add an alternative qualification "or five of the last
>> ten" to allow for longer-term regular participants. Either way, I think
>> that attending 50% of meetings should be enough.
>
> I don't have a real problem with "3 out of 6" or "5 out of 10" or even 50% of our meetings, but I at least one of those 3, 5 or
> 50% needs to
> be recent (let us say 1 or the last two, and 3 out of 6.
>
> What I'm saying is that, and yes it is an extreme case, someone that
> attended the first 48 meetings would not be qualified when we establish
> the next NomCom after IETF 96. Nor would someone attending 5 meetings
> and then did not attend for almost 2 years be qualified.
>
On another sub-thread, John Klensin said:
> The kind of adjustments Brian and others
> have suggested may help, but I think the real issue is that we
> need not just to allow for fewer recent f2f meetings but to
> consider remote participation experience a real asset (while,
> ideally, pushing back on Nomcom membership by what Marshall Rose
> referred to a Go-ers, rather than Do-ers, no matter how many f2f
> (or remote) meetings they attend.
I'm sympathetic to both your points, but I'm also keen to keep the
rule as simple as possible, for various reasons (especially
simplicity in verification).
One way out is to decouple this question from RFC7437bis by designing
an RFC3933 Process Experiment (i.e. try out an alternative qualification
rule for a couple of years, reverting to the current rule afterwards
by default).
Brian