Subject: RE:

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:28:27 -0700

Hi,

maybe instead of writing "Members of the IETF community must have registered for and attended at
least 2 of the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.", you could put "Members of the IETF community must have participated at least 2 of the last 3 IETF meeting in order to volunteer. Participation is measured by the registration to a meeting." 

This might catch the spirit of participation ("attending", "contributing", "registering") to a meeting, and in addition, tell how this is measured. This would give the possibility to a volunteer "morally question" if he is eligible, and giving a simple and exact measure for checking that the person actually is allowed to volunteer.

Cheers,

Jonne.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Thomas Narten [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:20 PM
> To: Scott W Brim; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re:
> 
> 
> > I still like Phil's original suggestion,
> > "registered for and attended", which at least expresses it 
> partially.  
> 
> Let's be pragmatic too. If person Y comes along and says "But person X
> didn't attend, even though they registered, so I object to him/her
> being on nomcom", what happens to our process now? How will this issue
> be resolved?
> 
> We'd be advised to have a rule that avoids ambiguities and stick to
> rules where it is relatively easy to verify one way or what a person's
> status is.
> 
> And what does "attended" mean after all? spent 5 minutes in 3 WG
> sessions but then hung out in the hall the rest of the time? Let's not
> go there. Diminishing returns (at best).
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>