Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility - draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-01

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:11:26 -0700

Hi Michael,
At 10:03 02-08-2013, Michael Richardson wrote:
>I don't think that I understand your sentence.

I cannot quantify "not significantly".  It is easier for me to err by 
reading it as "not different".

>I mean that I don't think that your change in rule will make very many people
>eligible who were not already eligible, nor will it keep people eligible when
>there are reasons why they can not travel.
>
>In particular, I think that if we want more gendre and age equity, then we
>must be aware of this childbirth constraint on travel (on both men and women).

Ok.

Dave Crocker mentioned the word "participatory" a few weeks ago.  I 
would like to use it capture what you mentioned above.  Adrian Farrel 
mentioned the following:

   "I find it interesting that the competing tensions of "make sure there
    is a set of more experienced people on NomCom" and "widen NomCom to
    allow broader participation" might be solved by the same measure."

I would look at the proposal from that perspective.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:03:30 -0400

S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > There will be cases, as mentioned above, where a person will not be
    > NomCom-eligible.  I do not think that it is not relevant.  The previous
    > questions were to try and get a sense of what people consider as making the
    > difference.

    >> > - Will it help people with experience be NomCom-eligible?
    >>
    >> it is better than before, but not significantly.

    > I read "not significantly" as meaning that it does not make the difference
    > between now and what is being proposed.

    >> In the meantime, subscribing is never wrong ...

    > I am subscribed. :-)  My message triggered an anti-abuse rule.  That is why
    > it went to the moderation queue.

I thought I was subscribed, but I might not be.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:16:21 -0400

> I cannot quantify "not significantly".  It is easier for me to err by reading
    > it as "not different".

Yes, I agree.  I am saying that I do not think the eligible set will be
different.  Your proposal solves no problems, but causes no harm in my
opinion.

    > Dave Crocker mentioned the word "participatory" a few weeks ago.  I would
    > like to use it capture what you mentioned above.  Adrian Farrel mentioned the
    > following:

    > allow broader participation" might be solved by the same measure."

I think that it would be great.
I don't know what measure would do this, though.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [