[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    Re: meeting attendance & nomcom
From:       Jari Arkko <jari.arkko () piuha ! net>
Date:       2009-01-14 21:18:14
Message-ID: 496E5696.2090807 () piuha ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Like Stephen said, we have even more urgent problems if the attendance 
goes way down. Lets focus our immediate energy on that front. I'm sure 
the IAOC and Russ have already spent quite a bit of time on that... 
Also, if this becomes a serious nomcom issue, I suspect the biggest hit 
would be taken for the 2010 nomcom. 2009 nomcom will be decided based on 
attendance between IETF-70 and IETF-74, so even if you stopped coming 
since Minneapolis you'd still be eligible. So I think we have about a 
year to change the rule, if needed.

That being said, the nomcom attendance rule is just a convenient way to 
measure the nomcom member's exposure to the IETF process. Its not the 
only or necessarily even the best way to measure it. From my perspective 
the nomcom member needs to have some experience of the people in current 
positions, experience of other IETF folk that might be selected, and a 
general feeling of what is happening in the IETF, what works well, what 
does not, etc. In other words, a nomcom member should preferably have 
some amount of IETF experience. This could be measured by:

- attendance in meetings
- participation in a design team, conference call, etc.
- activity in the mailing list
- editor, chair, directorate member, etc. role
- authoring a document and taking it through the process

I wouldn't necessarily raise any particular item above the others here. 
But if pressed for another definition than attendance, I'd probably look 
at the last one. FWIW last year there were 494 different people who 
would have qualified. The nice thing about using that rule is that it 
forces the person to go through many things, including getting his work 
accepted by a BOF/WG, working with peer reviews in the WG, dealing with 
IESG reviews, etc. So presumably one would get a lot of experience of 
how the process works, which people seem helpful and so on.

Its not a problem free definition either, of course. For instance, some 
of my documents have co-authors that did major work on the 
specification, but never attended the IETF and would have very little to 
say in nomcom.

Jari

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]