Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Now, I'm sure some people feel intimidated by the tone and way
> things are done in the IETF, but it's definitely not closed or
> requiring special membership/affiliation to "play".
> Because of the way nomcom eligibility works, it effectively does
> require special membership: you have to be able to attend three out of
> five IETFs in a row. We don’t call this a membership, but in effect it
> is. The minimum cost of the membership is three times the IETF
> conference fee plus travel expenses.
You are under-estimating.
That's what is costs to become nomcom eligible for a single year.
If you want to remain enfrancised then you have to continue to attend.
I think that this is where we need to change the rules. I've written
about this before at length.
I'm happy with the threshold for becoming enfranchised, but I'd like
to lower the threshold to remain enfranchised.
Somewhere between 1 meeting/year (1:3) and 1 meeting/3 years (1:9).
The 3:5 is satisfied if you go to 2 meetings/year (2:3 > 3:5).
This will have to sorted out more significantly if we want to support larger
numbers of remote participants. Some formula.
In particular I think that a person who become nomcom eligible should
remain eligible during a typical parental leave period, which in modern
countries is usually around a year. When I was a parent of a small
child, I getting to more than one meeting a year was logistically impossible,
and that one meeting was a challenge.
Noting as others have already noted, that "voting" at the IETF is not at like
voting at the IEEE. It's just about who gets to be *directly* involving in
"hiring" management.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
