On 3/24/19 8:46 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
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).
So basically the cost of being "in the club" is around USD6000/year for someone living in North America, perhaps higher elsewhere. Or having a "sponsor" who is willing to pony up that money on your behalf. And that's assuming you're not staying in the conference hotels. It's not cheap.
I wonder how that compares with the cost of having a say in choosing the leadership of some other SDOs?
Regarding recall, I do think the bar should be reasonably high to initiate the process. The primary responsibility for choosing leaders should be with the nomcom; recalls should mostly be for emergencies. But I don't think the criteria for who can sign the petition are quite right. In principle, I think someone who participates actively on at least one WG mailing list, authors or co-authors an internet-draft, or especially someone who reviews WG documents, should qualify. Though in practice, I would be concerned that such a policy would encourage measurable (but perhaps not meaningful) participation just so that certain employers can have their employees sign recall petitions for ADs that they didn't like. There are certainly companies participating in IETF with the resources to do that, especially if the bar were lowered. And I saw enough dirty pool while on IESG to think it's plausible.
I'm not sure what I'd recommend as a fix. But it's not an easy problem to solve. and we could easily do worse than what we have in place now.
Keith
