I liked the suggestion of a process experiment where the Nomcom chair could accept a volunteer that did not qualify under the current rules, based on his/her own judgment, possibly with a challenge period (we already have a challenge period in the procedure). Once we have a few tens of examples of people who want to serve and the community doesn't mind being allowed to serve, we can start seeing if we can find rules that cover them. Harald On 04/07/2016 08:11 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Yes, this again. > > I've refreshed RFC7437bis in the datatracker since we're effectively > between active NomCom periods, so now's a good time to take another > look at this. > > For those that didn't follow along last time, the big showstopper for > this draft as I have it now had to do with updating the criteria for > qualifying to serve on the NomCom. The current draft says: > > (1) To qualify, one must have attended three of the last five > in-person meetings, as it's been for a long time now. > > (2) This is regularly criticized as selecting for attendees with the > support and budget to travel to the meetings, and possibly excludes > people who make substantial or numerous IETF contributions but > participate remotely more than in person. > > We made previous attempts on this list to come up with new criteria > given (2) above, but weren't successful at coming to consensus, so I > took them back out, leaving the text that's there now. The previous > thread: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QHwG1KrQDBK9u0wsfALjPSre-pw > > I'd like to take another run at this before the next NomCom really > gets going. One suggestion I was given here at IETF 95 is to come up > with some system that's worth trying, and not over-engineer it to > protect against gaming or other abuses until such time as such abuse > is evident. It might, for example, be sufficient defense to empower > the NomCom Chair or the IETF Chair (or both) with a "panic button", > making them able to declare that selection criteria will fall back to > what we have now if it looks like the proposed new qualification > system is likely to yield an inappropriate set of selecting NomCom > members. > > Comments welcome. > > -MSK -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.