On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie
<ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
We need all the volunteers we can get.
I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on
maximizing the quantity of nomcom volunteers with little apparent
concern for their level of interest. As far as I can tell, the nomcom
worked fine in its early years when there commonly less than 50
volunteers.
Burnout risk alone should tell you it isn't nonsense, even if you care
absolutely nothing about the diversity of volunteers available to NomCom.
The NomCom takes time and energy to do well, and if someone cares
enough about the IETF to volunteer it, turning them away because some
of their most recent experience was on day passes is silly. I know at
least two former ADs who attended the last meeting on day passes,
and we have seen others who have not met a 3/5 rule only because
illness forced them to participate remotely. I'd personally rather
we expand "attend" to include remote attendance rather than narrow
it to exclude folks who didn't pay for a whole week.
As Dave Crocker has pointed out again and again: the time and attention
of the participants is the biggest undocumented donation in the whole IETF
system. We use a mechanistic way to determine whether someone is
contributing now for the purposes of NomCom eligibility, recall
petitions, and so.
It's not a great measure and narrowing it, as this proposal does, only
highlights
how poor it really is.
I understand Sam's concern about our funding, but relying on this stick
to keep us solvent within our current paradigm doesn't strike me personally
as either likely to succeed or likely to produce the best results for
the Internet
even if it does keep the org afloat without a funding change.
Just my two cents,
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf