Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
    >> That's why I wrote "contribution" --- we could imagine some system of
    >> points, with the datatracker being the scoreboard, but I'm not clear
    >> that we need an particularly complex system or overly restrictive
    >> system.

    > But we do need - my strongly held opinion - an "objective" one and
    > that's harder to craft with respect to the definition of
    > "contribution".  Whereas simply counting meetings is objective and
    > repeatable.

    > To be honest, I foresee a spate of throw away IDs being crafted to be
    > counted as contributions and that might not be all that useful for our
    > process.

Yeah, but that's why I wrote that the document uploader (pressed submit) on a
     document that *was scheduled into a WG session*

So, it requires that the WG chair be involved, and thus there is a system of
account.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature