Re:

[John C Klensin <john+nomcom@jck.com>]

--On Wednesday, 11 September, 2002 08:55 -0700 Marshall Rose
<mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us> wrote:

> i'm going to suggest the opposite. perhaps we should change it
> to:
> 
>> "Members of the IETF community must have registered for at
>> least 2 of the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer."
> 
> the reason is that it's fairly simple to demonstrate that
> someone registered. it is problematic to determine if someone
> actually attended.
> 
> if i just show up, collect my badge, and get back on the plane
> does that count as "attendence". what if i'm there for one
> meeting, one day, or one week?

Marshall, like you, I appreciate clear, interpretable, and
unambiguous rules.   But, even given my earlier comment about
people who are trying to work within the spirit of the system
versus others, I'd split the above a bit:  Make "registration"
the criterion, but define things so that "registration" is
defined as a process that requires someone to identify
themselves (done now) and pick up that badge in order to be
considered "registered".  In other words, you need to pay, and
you need to show up long enough to collect that badge.

If, after that, you immediately go home and do that for two out
of three meetings, but still want to volunteer for the nomcom,
we aren't going to be able to write rules good enough to stop
you, at least without really bogging ourselves down procedurally.

> ps: although i appreciate your inclusive instincts, if these
> guys attended and didn't pay, i think giving them the boot
> would be more appropriate. however, they get to slide by based
> on the wording currently in effect.

Absent registration, and payment, we have _no_ way to verify
attendance that works in the general case.  I've reviewed enough
blue sheets in the last several years to be quite confident
that, if we based eligibility on them, Mr D. Duck and Mr. M.
Mouse would be eligible.

      john