Re: Update

[Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:38:31AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I concur
>    Brian
> 
> Geoff Huston wrote:
> > 
> > Thank you - the difference of 29 does not strike me as being
> > a major issue one way or the othjer, but on the side of
> > inclusiveness I would favour the 3/5 recommendation.

Well, it looks like going to 3/5 would slightly *decrease*
inclusiveness, at least qualitatively, but I'm not sure it makes that
much difference.  One thing to consider that 3/5 allows is that
someone who has regularly attends meetings, but who has missed the two
most recent, consecutive meetings would still be elible to serve.  On
the other hand, it does mean that someone who just attended two
meetings for the time would not qualify.  Whether someone who had just
attend for two meetings would bother to volunteer is another question.

Anyway, life is filled with tradeoffs.  I'm not entirely convinced
that 3/5 is significantly better, but I'm not convinced its
significantly worse, either.  

						- Ted