The fact that the nomcom eligibility rules are attendance rather than
participation is a bug. It was known to be a bug when it was written.
Okay, if one wants to be picky, it was known to be a mediocre heuristic
approximation for what was desired.)
The challenge has been to find rules that capture the range of exposure
/ participation that would actually provide good background for
leadership selection.
We could not do so when we wrote the rules.
Maybe we can now. I would love to see better rules.
The challenge for me is telling that a proposed rule set has a
reasonable chance (there is no sure thing here) of being better. That
is part of what prompted the exchange with Michael about data.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/13/15 12:44 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On 13 February 2015 at 15:58, Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com
<mailto:housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>> wrote:
Sure, I appreciate that human contact is important. I've been to
two IETF meetings in the flesh, and I enjoy, and have had
significant benefit from, hallway conversations.
But to claim it's "the most important thing", and to further imply
that no other IETF participation or activity should count for
anything is just astonishing.
I said no such thing. I said that NomCom members need to understand
the culture, and that participation in the meetings is an important
aspect of learning that culture. In my view, this is confirmed by
the survey results.
...
a) The NomCom eligibility rules do not emphasize meeting
*participation*, but meeting attendance.
b) The NomCom eligibility rules do not *emphasize* meeting attendance,
they *are* meeting attendance.
...