On 05/14/10 17:02, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Doug,
I had also wished for numbers that more clearly translated into impact
on who was NomCom eligible (as you requested), but decided not to,
simply because I wasn't convinced this would matter enough on who was
selected to serve on NomCom, to justifiy spending secretariat time
gathering the information.
Here is where my boundless optimism works against me. I imagined that
since this is the Internet ENGINEERING Task Force that the NUMBER of
people affected by the proposed policy would have been something that
the IESG would have asked for PRIOR to generating a policy for them; and
that not communicating that information was simply an oversight that
could easily be rectified. The concept that having to generate that
information at this stage in the game would be new work never occurred
to me.
(OTOH if this were the Internet "Feelings and Flowers" Task Force then
endless pontification about abstract concepts without any actual data to
pollute the stream of consciousness would be totally germane, and not at
all a waste of everyone's time.)
Now that the IESG has changed their proposed policy statement so that
people who MIGHT have purchased a day pass thinking that this counted as
"attending" for NomCom purposes, I am OK with not knowing these numbers,
and I believe that the IESG is interpreting 3777 in a way that is not
unreasonable.
The new statement is an improvement as a stopgap measure, yes.
Doug
--
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf