Subject: One more comments on the process draft

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:28:28 -0700

I sincerely apologize for this belated comment (only got on the mailing list
yesterday)

   15.  Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
        the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.

     ........
        Volunteers are expected to be familiar with the IETF processes
        and procedures, which are readily learned by active
        participation in a working group and especially by serving as a
        document editor or working group chair.

The above is a step forward from the prev requirement (2 out of last 3
meetings).  I assume the intention is to get volunteers with adequate
familiarity with BOTH the IETF process AND the individual participants. I
would like to suggest to make this step a little bigger.

One could meet the above requirement by attending the last 3 meetings during
one year period, which seems still a bit too short.  And the expectation of
being "familiar with the IETF processes" is a subjective one  (in academic
publication reviews, graduate students are most likely ones to consider
themselves "expert in the subject area" :-)

Given the current economical conditions, there can also be well qualified
people who may have attended many IETF meetings previously but unable to
attend as often in the last 2 years.

So how about the following as a suggestion:

   15.  in order to volunteer, Members of the IETF community must
        have attended at least 4 of the last 8 IETF meetings and the first
        attendance must be at least 3 years prior to the date on which the
        solicitation for nominating
        committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF
        community.

Lixia

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:45:18 -0400 (EDT)

Lixia,

This was discussed very extensively, as it is every time this document
is revised. After long arguments with lots of proposals, all of which
should be in the archives, 3 out of the last 5 was decided on. I suggest
it is too late to re-open this question.

If the chair allows it to be re-opened, I suspect that many of the
advocates of many of the previously advanced positions will speak up and
demand that their suggestions be re-considered also.

As you agree, there was rough consensus that the change is an
improvement. It is not clear to me that we could reach rough consensus
in a reasonable length of time that any other change is a greater
improvement.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Lixia Zhang wrote:

> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:28:28 -0700
> From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: One more comments on the process draft
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>