I think your email (below) argues quite eloquently for why it doesn't matter a
whole lot what the statement says. As you point out, this is not likely to make
a difference regarding who is actually selected for nomcom. I don't think that
we know whether or not there would be *anybody* effected by this (and I would
prefer to figure out what the rule should be without knowing who, if anyone,
would be effected -- since I don't want the choice of rule to come down to a
popularity contest on the people effected, if any).
However, my understanding is that a chair should be appointed in the next month
or two for the next nomcom, and that at that point the process will begin to
pick the voting members. When this process begins, it seems highly desirable to
have precise rules regarding who is eligible and who is not.
Thus to me the point is not to have the best possible rule -- I don't think
that "best possible" is well defined in this case. The point is to have clearly
defined rules so that he process can go forward.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: 10 May 2010 04:53
Cc: IETF; IESG
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
I disagree with this policy action.
Looking at the data, there are very few, if any, people who would be
eligible as nomcom members under the current version of rule 14
(attended 3 out of 5 IETF's on any program) but not under the modified
version. And then, we have not factored in that traditionally
only some 10% of the people eligible to volunteer for the nomcom,
actually volunteers (and only a few out those, are actually selected).
Further, of the non-daypass attendees, some 40% says that they did
not attend the full week but skipped one or more days from the
program.
If we add this all up, I'd estimate that there is about a 10% chance
that one of the people on the 2010-2011 nomcom attended 2 full meetings
plus 1 day of either Anaheim or Hiroshima, as compared to the other
nomcom members who attended 3 full meetings. Can somebody explain
to me what the problem that we are trying to solve here is?
The IAOC has always said that the day-pass experiment will be evaluated
after a couple of meetings. This has started and we plan to show data
and a way forward in Maastricht. What we have also said that if the
experiment was turned into a regular feature, we'd review all documents
for attendence requirements and come up with a proposal how to
modify them. This is still the case.
In short, I fail to see the need for a policy statement at this time.
Henk
(for himself, not necessarily for the full IAOC)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf