On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>wrote:
Alia Atlas <akatlas(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> I have attended one meeting remotely - and the experience is nothing
at all
> like being at IETF. I can see modifying NomCom eligibility
constraints
> slightly - but I really do not think that remote attendees will have
the
> necessary experience and acculturation unless they have attended a
number of
> IETFs in person.
That's why, I am not in favour of significantly changing the criteria to
*become* nomcom eligible. I really don't think anyone thinks that one can
become clueful about IETF culture without being there in person a few
times.
That's possibly true.
That said, I have been to two meetings, none in the past five, and I
certainly don't think I'm automatically less clueful than all those who've
attended three of the past five.
In my favour, I've a few RFCs, including working group output, and I'm
co-chairing a working group.
Perhaps the volunteer selection process ought to be that working groups
provide a smallish set of volunteers each, and get rid of artificial
eligibility criteria which attempt to obliquely address real - and
important - criteria. I'd perhaps suggest that working group chairs cannot
be "volunteered" by their own working groups.
I suspect that doing things that way would both reflect participation
better, and produce a lot more engagement into the nomination process.
Dave.