You present an interesting idea and I appreciate your desire to avoid a
two-class nomcom. If you were to take that approach, I'd suggest allocating
points as below:
High points (e.g., 10)
- served as a working group chair
- served on the IESG or IAB
Medium points (e.g., 5)
- served as a liaison
- authored an IETF Stream RFC
- shepherded an IETF Stream RFC
- served on a directorate or liaison
(there are probably others)
Low points (e.g., 1 per meeting)
- meeting attendance
Giving meeting attendance points 1 per meeting without bound seems like a good
idea since someone who has attended 20 IETF meetings may be a lot more plugged
in than someone who has attended 5 or some of the 'medium points' items.
Just a thought,
On 7/30/10 11:23 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
I can see the desire to have some more experience on the nomcom.
However, I am completely opposed to invidious schemes to divide the nomcom
voting members into two (or more) classes. And I think the desired results
can be obtained without doing so.
The current qualification is attendance 3 out of the last 5 meetings but no
one notices or cares whether any particular nomcom volunteer attended 3, 4,
or 5 meeting. If you want more experienced members, just tighten the
attendance criteria a bit but give points for other experience. As an
example, set a threshold of 4 or 5 points where you get one for each meeting
you attend out of the last six, one point for being on either of the two most
recent nomcoms, and one point for having been a working group chair in the
past two years. You could even make the probability of selection non-uniform
based on points and I'd be willing to modify the code normally used to allow
that, but I don't think it would be necessary.
This way you will get more experience without the dominance effects of some
nomcom members being labeled Senior and some Junior or whatever.
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list