Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
    > I think what you're getting at is that there are different types of remote
    > participation.  If one wants to listen in, that should only require the
    > appropriate software and a network connection.  If one actually wants to
    > participate, then one either has to get onto a WeBex or Meetecho system.  
The
    > point of this is that there has should be some demonstration that someone
    > substantially participated in an IETF event.

I find that jabber+streamed mp3 is sufficient for a lot of things.
I do not think that one has to actively contribute as much as be available to
object to bad ideas.  So, we mostly need to register for that remotely
controlled hum generator.

    > to do so.  Others, on the other hand, require more bandwidth.  Case and 
point:
    > the httpbis working group has held two interim meetings and two more are
    > planned.  All off site.  Should these people be counted?  If so, how?

I think that once we have a mechanism to count remote participation, we will
use it.  I think that an interim meeting is just part of the in-person
meeting that follows it.  That makes it simple and direct.

An in-person interim meeting may provide substantially more "indoctrination"
to a new person than a full blown meeting.

    > And so, as I said, I'm fine with SM's idea, modulo John's suggested 
edit.  But
    > I also think it would be useful to look beyond that change as well.

+1


--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on 
rails    [

pgpXC70kbUJdX.pgp
Description: PGP signature