> The
> purpose of this constraint is to prefer community members that have
> had an opportunity to observe the contributions and conduct of other
> members directly rather than purely through remote participation.
s/an opportunity/a recent opportunity/
I think that was really the point - prefer people who had recently been
able to make observations of behaviour, and avoid old-timers who don't
participate much any more.
> 3. A new reason to challenge a selection is that a specific member
> who has not attended three of the last five meetings of the IETF
> is not suitable for the NomCom. Such a challenge must be
> accompanied by an explanation of why that particular member is
> not suitable.
I think this is too general and judgmental. Suggestion:
3. A new reason to challenge a selection is that a specific member
who has not attended three of the last five meetings of the IETF
does not have enough recent participation of any kind to be an
effective member of the NomCom. Such a challenge must be
accompanied by a specific explanation of why the challenger
considers this to be the case.
I do think one possible outcome needs to be added:
X. That the results of the experiment suggest that the changes made
in Section 2 are damaging and should not be applied again;
I regard this as unlikely, but I disagree with the comment that the
experiment is bound to succeed. I can think of a number of failure
scenarios, several of which would cause the NomCom chair to abort
the process.
Regards
Brian