Re:

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:43:22 -0700
    From:        Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
    Message-ID:  <E17p7m6-000B8N-00@roam.psg.com>

  | i agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning.  i just don't
  | think we want cheaters on the nomcom.

I don't think we need to go that far - it is more that there's simply
no accountable way to verify attendance, other than by use of the
registration information.

And actually, what we're probably actually checking is registration and
payment - attendance can't be verified either.   The secretariat might
know that a registration packet for a particular person was not picked up,
which might be a clue that the person didn't attend (but isn't proof), but
the opposite is not true - that a registration packet was picked up doesn't
mean the person attended, anyone can go and say "my name's Randy Bush" and
the packet goes away (so if you want to make it look like you've attended,
when you're not going to, and you're willing to pay, it is real easy, unless 
perhaps you're one of the very well known IETF people).

Even if we had the secretariat checking photo ID's, all that would mean was
that the person in question appeared at the registration desk, sometime
during the conference, which has no relationship at all with the reasons
given for imposing that condition, which assume that by attending, some
knowledge of how the IETF works, and who seems to be doing a good job, is
acquired.  Collecting the registration packet imparts none of that.

So, while I certainly have no objection to the proposed change, maybe we
should be more honest about reality, and simply say that to be qualified,
the person must have paid for attendance at 2 of the past 3 IETF meetings...
(and simply forget about actual attendance)   As I follow the process, that's
what we've actually been requiring for the past N years.

In any case, this part of the requirement is fine, either as suggested, or
as above.

But if we're going to change this paragraph, perhaps we can review the "2
of the last 3" one more time.   Rather than just suggest "n of the last m"
with some different values of n and m, which is what has been done before,
perhaps a slightly different approach.

How about:
	has attended 2 of the last 3, or attended one of the last 3
	and at least 6 IETF meetings (anytime).

I think that still covers things - attending one recent meeting means
that there will be some perspective of current events, and not just what
the organisation was like 10 years ago, and attending 6 meetings over
however long should be enough to gain enough familiarity with how the
IETF works.

"Attended" here is meant however is decided when the above issue is resolved.

[Aside: and no, I am not attempting to cut out those who don't attend at
all, if we could agree with a mechanism to allow doc authors, etc, to
be included, that would be great, it's just that we have so far failed to
ever agree on a formula that includes that - I'm just trying to find a
scheme that works to allow people to participate more, when they can't
get to almost every IETF meeting].

The "6" is also just a first attempt - other numbers, 4, 5, 8, ... would
work too.

kre