Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:
    > I'm not accepting that this approach is making things better.

    > I see the 3/5 attendance record as a means to ensure that the potential
    > NomCom voting member is familiar with the culture of the IETF and that
    > they are aware of the current issues that are facing the IETF, at leas
    > in the portion of the IETF where they are active.  I see (b) as a way

Yes, and it is not proposed to eliminate that.
We need the "indoctrination" phase to get the "pledges" up to speed.
After which one becomes Alumni, and the requirements are less.

Can you see how this is an issue for many participants?

One of the things that seems to get in the way of improving the remote
attendance options/technologies is the question of what this will do to
nomcom eligibility.  (The other thing is what it would do to revenue)
We have an innovator's dilemma and an old-boys club problem here: the people
who pick the people who make the decisions, are self-selected from the people
who can travel.

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature