On Fri, 8 Apr 2016, Ted Lemon wrote:
There are some issues here. First, who can challenge a nomcom volunteer's
elegibility? Second, what process is followed if their eligibility is
challenged? This actually seems a lot harder than some of the other
proposals that were put forth, which simply extended eligibility of the
same type to more IETF participants, rather than creating two classes of
IETF participants.
Thanks Ted -
As the incoming NomCom chair I have some concerns about how exercising
judgment can scale to possible requests. The current selection and vetting
process already includes a lot of steps and processing - if you want to
add a layer here I'd like to feel confident that this was something the
community really wanted and that the proposed vetting wouldn't leave those
executing exposed to second guessing after the fact.
- Lucy
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>
wrote:
So, we'll know by August if the experiment resulted in more volunteers.
My only concern is that we decide it was ineffective in getting more
diverse
volunteers, and stop; but it might have needed more than 1 year to
socialize
the ideas out there.
A result might also be: the new rules cause no harm and should be kept
until
such time we have more data.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-