Re: Attendance

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

a specific suggestion on how to resolve.....
at the moment draft-ietf-nomcom.... has only the following text:

  7.   Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 2 of
       the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.

       The 3 meetings are the three most recent meetings that ended
       prior to the date on which the solicitation for nominating
       committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF
       community.

No explanation.

If we add to the Appendix A "Oral Tradition" the following text:

  The test for eligibility for nomcom membership was based on two
  considerations:
  - We want active community members who care about the IETF, want to
  select the best possible leadership for it, and are close enough to
  the community to be able to do so.
  - We want an objective test for who is eligible and who is not.

  The criterion we have found that most closely meets both those criteria
  is attendance at meetings. It excludes people who participate in the
  community but do not come to meetings; still, it seems impossible to
  find a rule that would include those but not exclude people who have
  less involvement in the community.

Wordsmith to taste.
The important part is:

- document the reasons WHY the rule is the way it is
- do NOT mix the documentation with the ruleset

                Harald

--On 12. september 2002 00:08 -0400 Mark Allman <mallman@grc.nasa.gov> 
wrote:

> > The dilemma is between what we actually care about, versus what we
> > can easily measure.
>
> I have always found it odd that in an organization that does not
> require meeting attendance and makes no formal decisions at meetings
> requires one to attend meetings to be eligible to choose the
> leadership of the body.  So, FWIW (and, I know this has been raised
> before) -- I remain of the opinion that there are *additional*
> measures of "participation" that do not involve meeting attendance
> (or registration or whatever we end up calling it) and could be
> easily measured for use by nomcom (WG RFCs written, active WG I-Ds
> written, chairing WGs/BOFs, etc.).  That is, I think the whole thing
> may work better as an "or" conditional (m/n meetings or 2 WG RFCs in
> the last 3 years or ...).  And, while the or conditional may allow
> for more involvement I think it is pretty easy to define it in such
> a way that it does not allow for an influx of tourists or folks who
> are not active participants.
>
> allman
>
>
> --
> Mark Allman -- NASA GRC/BBN -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>