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
Either way the IESG decides to go on this for this round of nomcom
eligibility will be fine I think given the circumstances. But I tend
to think Ted is right about this. We've done the day passes for two
meetings? With how many people taking advantage of it? And how many
people taking advantage of it more than once? It seems that the
downside of the perception of not being inclusive is greater than the
risk of getting a nomcom loaded up with a bunch of people who aren't
really paying much attention.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf