Hi Eliot.
I agree this is a problem ... but not one that we can solve yet. At
this time the face-to-face meetings are still essential, and one
cannot evaluate candidates without good knowledge of what an I*
member's life is like at them. If/when we manage to reduce the
significance of the face-to-face meetings, then we can and should
change nomcom membership requirements.
Scott
Excerpts from Eliot Lear at 07:56:48 +0100 on Fri 9 Jan 2009:
Dear all,
I don't know about other companies, but mine has pretty tight travel
restrictions right now. I do not yet know if I will make the San
Francisco IETF or Stockholm. I suspect attendance at both will be way
down, but it's a hunch. If others are in the same position, it will
lead to a potential problem with the NOMCOM, which is that the pool of
eligible volunteers may shrink to an unacceptably low number. It seems
to me we already had problems getting a large enough pool in good times.
And so my questions:
1. Do others agree that this is likely to be a problem?
[Stop here if no.]
2. If so, what should be done about it?
There are a couple of alternatives:
1. Increase the number of meetings we look at to determine pool size.
2. Expand the criteria based on other means (like authorship, mailing
list activity, virtual meeting participation, etc).
3. Other
Comments?
Eliot
_______________________________________________
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