--On Saturday, 10 January, 2015 17:31 -0500 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
Everyone who volunteers for Nomcom must have at least 3
certified and approved instances of being a note taker or
jabber scribe for a full set of sessions for a specific
working group in the past 5 meetings in addition to attending
3 of 5 meetings. "Approved" means that the notes are
complete, correct and readable as viewed by the majority of
the WG chairs and editors. "Certified" means that the WG
chair(s) heard you volunteer and noted that in the minutes.
Notes may be taken in any language, but must be translated to
English within a month of the end of the IETF meeting.
Multiple note takers may be certified at any given meeting and
all notes gleaned from any of them will be added to the
meeting record.
The above has the advantage that it is a relatively small bar,
it provides a benefit to the IETF, and its annoying enough to
discourage the run of the mill gamers from participating.
Interesting. Looking at the volunteer list for the last few
years, I've wondered whether we are developing a collection of
people (or the companies who support their IETF participation)
who would rather be on the Nomcom than do substantive technical
work. Certainly not all volunteers for the Nomcom are like
that, but I wonder. It seems to me that the approach above
would help drive some portion of the community toward Nomcom
roles and that conditions needed to get them and away from being
document editors, WG secretaries or chairs, etc.
I agree with your concern about oligarchies, but I think the
Nomcom model depends on Nomcom members being more or less a
random sample of participants, ideally active participants, in
the IETF. Changing things to the point that we end up
effectively splitting IETF participation into a
Nomination-Selection class of people and a Technical Work and
Leadership Role class of people would not be, IMO, beneficial.
john