Re: Attendance

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

Harald,

Given that we still don't see a better rule, your strategy seems
to be correct to me.   One suggestion about it, based on
thinking about part of Dave's observation.  He wrote:

> 2.  Although participation in the IETF does not require
> showing up at the meetings, any practical consideration of the
> job requirements will show that leadership of the IETF does.
> So it helps to have some idea of what those meetings are
> about.  You can't have that idea concretely unless you go to
> the meetings yourself.

I think we can (and should) say that as a third "consideration",
e.g., by adding something like:

	- since much of the work of the IESG and IAB is done at,
	or manifests itself at, meetings, it is important to
	have Nomcom members who are familiar with the dynamics
	of IETF meetings and participants in them.

That said, I still wish we could come up with a mechanism for
including the more active non-attending participants in the
Nomcom pool.  A higher participation definition threshold for
them wouldn't bother me, nor would a percentage limit on the
number of them on the Nomcom (that actually might be a good
idea).  But I believe that, e.g., people who don't regularly
come to meetings but who take on high-responsibility roles such
as WG document editor or area directorate member, should be
Nomcom-eligible.  Especially in these difficult times, when
meeting attendance may be very burdensome for more of our
traditionally-active participants, having a few people on the
Nomcom who have the perspective of active non-attendees would, I
think, be good for the Nomcom and the IETF.

Do others feel this way?  Is it worth trying to come up with a
definition of very regular and active participants who don't
regularly attend meetings?   Would enough of you who fall into
that category (I think you, and we, mostly know who you are...
almost by definition) be willing to volunteer to make this worth
thinking about?

     john


--On Thursday, 12 September, 2002 10:50 +0300 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> 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.
>...
> 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.
>...
> 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