On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:03:36PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
So I would keep the 3/5 in-person meetings to *become* nomcom
eligible.
This would be wonderful. Should this eligibility decay? For example, I
am probably eligible (to be eligible) by this standard, but it's been a
long time since I attended 3/5 (if I ever did; I'm not sure and I'm not
going to go look it up).
Once eligible, the rules for remaining eligible would be different.
I would propose something like having *contributed* to at least two
meetings in the past four. We could come up with complex or simple
+1.
Having attended at least one (not just with a day pass) of the past
three meetings seems important: so the NOMCOM members have an idea of
who is who, and 1/3 seems feasible for most participants. Remote
participation is nice and all (it's mostly my mode of participation
lately), but it's not necessarily enough.
When visa or other issues make 1/3 difficult for some participants then
it could be made 1/4.
rules on what it means to contribute, we could automated it, and
we can discuss all the ways that various rules could be gamed.
My ideas for contribution would include:
0) attend the meeting in person.
1) be a document shepherd or working group chair on a document
that entered AUTH48.
2) be the document uploader (pressed submit) on a document that
was scheduled into a WG session. (A document authors that has
never been to a meeting would never have become eligible. If
document authors want to rotate who submits, that actually
seems like a good idea if it keeps their hand in, as I've had to almost
stalk some co-authors during AUTH48 who seem to have fallen off the
planet)
3) opened a ticket on a document that was scheduled into a WG session.
4) scribed for the I* telechats.
Yes, except as to (4): scribing often means *just* that; scribes often
fail to grasp what they are scribing. (There have been studies about
how typing notes during lectures is much worse than writing notes
long-hand, or short-hand even. I believe these are likely correct and
apply to scribing IETF meetings too.)
Note that I have avoided counting "remote attendance" activities
specifically, because that would require us to figure out who attended
and register them, etc. and I don't think we are ready for that yet.
Yes.
Nico
--