On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Joel M. Halpern
<jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com> wrote:
This note assumes that it was correct (not merely reasonable, as reasonable
folks can differ, and sometimes come to incorrect conclusions) for someone
using the day pass program to assume that said attendance would count.
While some people have asserted that they find it obvious that it should
count, other people (myself included) do not find it at all obvious.
As far as I can tell, the rules do not tell us whether the day passes should
or should not count. As Dave Crocker said, we have to make a choice. And
either choice is going to be an error relative to some people's
understanding of the rules.
One can craft arguments for making either error.
While it is certainly true that we can craft arguments for either
interpretation, I don't personally find the arguments for the narrow
interpretation all that compelling. If we have to err, let's err on the
side of inclusiveness. We can craft rules that narrow things in
the future, but we should not do so for those meetings which
have already taken place.
Disenfranchisement for those meetings where someone has already made the
calculus of how much to attend seems likely to leave a bad taste in
the mouth of at least some participants, and that may discourage
them from being NomCom volunteers, both now and in the future.
We need all the volunteers we can get.
Just my two cents,
Ted Hardie
Personally, I would prefer to stick with the narrower ruling, matching the
proposed text from the IESG, until we either have a permanent day pass
program, with rules suitably defined, or do not have any more day passes to
deal with.
Yours,
Joel
Samuel Weiler wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2010, The IESG wrote:
The IESG observes that attending a single day of the IETF meeting is not
sufficient for a new participant to learn the culture of the IETF or the
qualities that would make an effective IETF leader.
Opposed. (Disclosures: I've not used a day pass. I have served on
NomCom.)
Even if it were reasonable to do this prospectively (e.g. future day
passes don't count), it's not particularly fair those the few (like Kurt)
who may be disenfranchised by applying this retrospectively.
Day passes used to date should count. Period.
As for the future, I find a flaw in the IESG's logic above. Indeed, a
single day of one physical meeting is not enough to learn the culture. But
we're still requiring three separate meetings. And it's not as though we're
insisting that those who pay for the week stay for the week.
And then there's the long-term-participant-with-reduced-funding issue. If
such a person maximally used day passes for a year or two, I can see them
still having enough grasp on the culture to participate effectively in
NomCom.
-- Sam
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf