On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>
wrote:
c) The "NomCom eligibility" rules govern essentially any say in the
leadership of the IETF.
I disagree. "Eligibility for NomCom" and "having a say in IETF leadership"
are not synonyms.
Your claim is right only if you presuppose that those who become selecting
members of the NomCom typically disregard the feedback they receive about
candidates and instead assert their own agendas. I'd be comfortable
claiming that at least a large majority of the selecting members of the
last two NomComs, both of which included me, gave proper consideration to
feedback received from people in the community irrespective of who was
submitting the feedback or what their attendance or contributions were.
Remember, they're volunteers. They volunteer to provide a service, which
is the donation of time to do interviews, participate in conference calls,
accept and sift through mountains of feedback, deliberate, argue, and
enforce their own propriety. At least from my own experience, it's been
anything but a power play.
A sensible way of managing this change to avoid disruption would be to
provide several distinct criteria for eligibility, and select from each
pool proportionally, changing the proportions over time. So recall, for
example, might need 15 meeting attendees and 5 people qualifying under
active participation rules to initiate, gradually changing to emphasize
active participation.
This might be a reasonable starting point. What are your thoughts on
Michael's proposals for measuring active participation?
-MSK