Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 21:29:30 -0400
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikR_eKuNQtsglXsvlEEDa8Ndd8nxU6ofMPiWnrX(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com>
| It's fine if you think the qualification threshold should be a bit
| lower than what I think. But to change it, there should be a real WG
| process. The criteria is that for 3 out of the last 5 meetings,
| qualify to attend for the week, show up and pick up your badge, and
| get publicly listed for a while so anyone who thinks you are not
| qualified can object. I don't think that should be changed due to an
| IAOC experiment.
It's fine if you think the qualification threshold should be a bit higher
than what I think. But to change it, there should be a real WG process.
The criteria is that for 3 out of the last 5 meetings, attend. There is
no criteria to pick up any badges, do anything for a week (incidentally, do
you mean to exclude all the people who fly home Thursday evening and don't
stay for the Friday sessions?_, ever walk in the hallway, or go to the bar,
or even a single working group meeting or plenary. Just attend (ie: be
there, and perhaps, pay.) That is what is in 3777. You might not like it,
you might even be right, but to change it, as you say, you need a full WG
process, not just an IESG statement.
The IAOC experiment just changes payment options, it doe not automatically
cause anyone to attend less, or more, than they would have otherwise, or to
experience any more or less of the "IETF culture". I cannot even begin to
imagine how this is relevant to nomcom selection.
Would an IESG statement that limited nomcom participation to those who
paid the full fee, and exclude those who used early bird (cheaper) registration
be just as acceptable to you as this one? (Or the reverse if you prefer,
accept only those who were committed enough to the IETF to pay well in
advance, and exclude those who turned up at the last minute?)
If no, why not - it (either) is exactly the same kind of "clarification" ?
Anything like this requires WG consideration. For this year we just
leave it like it is where "attends" is "attends" and counts anyone who
was there, paid or unpaid, day pass, early bird, student rate, or full fee
(or snuck in).
For sometime beyond this year (and maybe even next year) the whole issue,
with a whole range of possible changes, can be considered by a WG that
would not be constrained to "take this or leave it" as we currently have.
kre
ps: all the questions as to what qualifications are required of a noomcom
volunteer, how big the pool should be, ... are all fine topics to discuss -
in a WG created to discuss those issues - none are relevant now - that you'd
even consider making an argument on those lines means that you're accepting
that the IESG "statement" is in fact a change - you support it because you
think it is a good change, while at the same time opposing any other change
(that you like less) as requiring a WG process. That's unacceptable.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf