Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
    > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Melinda Shore
    > <melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

    >> On 2/13/15 8:44 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > Moreover, if you accept
    >> that the word "culture" is effectively > indistinguishable to
    >> outsiders from the term "status quo" (though the > intent is obviously
    >> different), it's really quite revealing. All this > "preserving the
    >> culture" talk comes out in an entirely different light.
    >>
    >> I think this is a really important comment.  I mean, *really*
    >> important comment.
    >>

    > Bringing us back to the draft under discussion:

    > It sounds to me like our policies and tools around remote participation
    > haven't evolved yet to the point where we can set down some serious
    > NomCom eligibility criteria different from what's there now.  By that
    > I'm not in any way saying that these aren't important things to sort
    > out, just that it's not possible at the moment to come to consensus on
    > what exact changes we should make.

    > I suppose another way to look at that is: I have no idea what to write
    > in terms of replacement text for the current Section 4.14 of BCP 10
    > that reflects a consensus here.  Does anyone else want to take a stab
    > at it?

I've been super-busy on a dozen fronts, but I've been reading every message
on this thread.  I don't know if it is urgent get this text done this week.

I might propose that we ask for a BOF; but an in-person discussion would be
self-selecting.  It might be that having a virtual interim meeting after
Dallas would make more sense.   What if we had some kind of remote attendee 
summit?

I don't think that the quality of the tools or the question of fee or not
should prevent us from considering if there is a way to change the manner in
which ones remains eligible.  As written, I don't think that Dave Cridland
would ever become eligible again (since that would still be 3/5), nor, I
think were he already eligible, that he'd remain so, because you still have
to attend 1 meeting/year to remain eligible.

{It has become clear to me in thinking about this, that we need to make sure
we figure out when we measure properly}



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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature