On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 06:43:56AM -0700, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Dave Cridland wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 at 10:52, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mar 24, 2019, at 11:06 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > > This is correct. I have a number of RFCs to my name, but at only 2.5 > > meetings in two decades, I don't get a possibility of a say in our > > leadership. This irritates me, even though I've been less involved of late. > > This more or less descibes my recent situation as well. And mine. > > The lack of NomCom eligibility does rankle a bit on its own, true. The > > juxtaposition of NomCom against the other principles the IETF holds makes > > for a stark contrast, so the NomCom rules look out of place and against our > > own culture. +1. I'm not asking for anything, just agreeing. I liked Michael Richardson's suggestion that while initial eligibility might be "expensive", continued eligibility perhaps should not be. I've not been coming to IETF meetings often in the past decade, but the cast of usual suspects and ADs is... not that different from when I used to go to two out of three meetings a year. > > Decisions increasingly occur at meetings and if you "only" follow the > > mailing lists, that's no longer enough in some Working Groups. Technical > > arguments and in particular running code have increasingly been replaced by > > market share. And as Ted says, the membership fees we don't have are > > several thousand dollars. I've noticed at least one recent instance of physical meeting consensus taking not confirmed on-list. Nico --
