Subject: Re:

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:08:23 -0400

> The dilemma is between what we actually care about, versus what we
> can easily measure.

I have always found it odd that in an organization that does not
require meeting attendance and makes no formal decisions at meetings
requires one to attend meetings to be eligible to choose the
leadership of the body.  So, FWIW (and, I know this has been raised
before) -- I remain of the opinion that there are *additional*
measures of "participation" that do not involve meeting attendance
(or registration or whatever we end up calling it) and could be
easily measured for use by nomcom (WG RFCs written, active WG I-Ds
written, chairing WGs/BOFs, etc.).  That is, I think the whole thing
may work better as an "or" conditional (m/n meetings or 2 WG RFCs in
the last 3 years or ...).  And, while the or conditional may allow
for more involvement I think it is pretty easy to define it in such
a way that it does not allow for an influx of tourists or folks who
are not active participants.

allman

--
Mark Allman -- NASA GRC/BBN -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

---

From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:22:06 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Allman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:08 PM
Subject: Re:

> leadership of the body.

Why do you find that odd ? It keeps all of the cash flow inside the I* society.

Look at .ORG, with 3,000,000 names at $6 per name per year, that will raise
$18,000,000 in revenue. At $250,000 per insider (their minimum wage), that
will fund 72 people.

Don't you think they want to protect that cash-flow and those "grants".

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer...
http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
http://ipv8.yi.org
http://ipv8.dyns.cx
http://ipv8.no-ip.com
http://ipv8.no-ip.org
http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
http://ipv8.no-ip.info
http://ipv8.myip.us
http://ipv8.dyn.ee
http://ipv8.community.net.au
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:50:21 +0300

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.

        The 3 meetings are the three most recent meetings that ended
        prior to the date on which the solicitation for nominating
        committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF
        community.

No explanation.

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.

   The criterion we have found that most closely meets both those criteria
   is attendance at meetings. It excludes people who participate in the
   community but do not come to meetings; still, it seems impossible to
   find a rule that would include those but not exclude people who have
   less involvement in the community.

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

                 Harald

--On 12. september 2002 00:08 -0400 Mark Allman <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>