On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>wrote:
> > Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have attended one meeting remotely - and the experience is nothing > at all > > like being at IETF. I can see modifying NomCom eligibility > constraints > > slightly - but I really do not think that remote attendees will have > the > > necessary experience and acculturation unless they have attended a > number of > > IETFs in person. > > That's why, I am not in favour of significantly changing the criteria to > *become* nomcom eligible. I really don't think anyone thinks that one can > become clueful about IETF culture without being there in person a few > times. > > That's possibly true. That said, I have been to two meetings, none in the past five, and I certainly don't think I'm automatically less clueful than all those who've attended three of the past five. In my favour, I've a few RFCs, including working group output, and I'm co-chairing a working group. Perhaps the volunteer selection process ought to be that working groups provide a smallish set of volunteers each, and get rid of artificial eligibility criteria which attempt to obliquely address real - and important - criteria. I'd perhaps suggest that working group chairs cannot be "volunteered" by their own working groups. I suspect that doing things that way would both reflect participation better, and produce a lot more engagement into the nomination process. Dave.
