Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility
draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-10

I'm glad this is happening.  I tried but failed a couple of times in the past to do this, so I'm glad someone managed to get it done.

Just one thing to clarify: "approved drafts" refers to an I-D that the IESG has balloted on and approved but hasn't yet been published as an RFC, correct?

Thank you for the work put into this document. My YES ballot is really a loud YES ;-)

It is really critical to continue to have a fair process for NomCom. Special thanks as well to Robert & Carsten.

Please find below one some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric
== COMMENTS ==

-- Abstract --
  "The experiment is of fixed duration and will
   apply to one, or at most two, consecutive Nominating Committee
   cycles."
To be on the safe side, should the cycle be explicit enumerated (like in section 2) ?

-- Section 2 --
Just curious about why the IESG should only consult the NomCom chairs and not the NomCom members (including non-voting members == liaisons) ? The intent of this document is really critical, so, I would have assumed that the more source of information, the better.

-- Section 3 --
In the first bullet, should the term "active participants" be defined? Perhaps a forward reference to section 4 ?

-- Section 4 --
Path 1: Honestly, I find the criteria of "for at least one session of an online IETF meeting." a little weak... The bar is really low in this case (registering for one day and attending one WG session).

Path 2: could we add directorate chairs to the mix ?

-- Section 7 --
Semi-seriously, I do consider this document as improving the security of the Internet by keeping the diversity and effectiveness of NomCom.

== NITS ==

-- Section 1 --
I am afraid that I cannot parse "assumed when that document was approved to be face-to-face meetings" (possibly because English is not my native language).

Enthusiastic “Yes” here, and thanks for the work on this.  I have one minor, no-big-deal comment:

   *  Path 3: Has been a listed author or editor (on the front page) of
      at least 2 IETF stream RFCs within the last 5 years prior to the
      day the call for NomCom volunteers is sent to the community.  An
      Internet-Draft that has been approved by the IESG and is in the
      RFC Editor queue counts the same as a published RFC (with the
      relevant date being the date the draft was added to the RFC Editor
      queue).  So the 5 year timer extends back to the date 5 years
      before the date when the call for NomCom volunteers is sent to the
      community.

The last sentence seems superfluous, repetitive of the first sentence.  I also suggest slight rewording so that the first and second sentences both emphasize the relevant dates:

NEW
   *  Path 3: Has been a listed author or editor (on the front page) of
      at least 2 IETF stream RFCs whose publication dates are within
      the last 5 years prior to the day the call for NomCom volunteers
      is sent to the community.  An Internet-Draft that has been approved
      by the IESG and is in the RFC Editor queue counts the same as a
      published RFC, with the relevant date being the date the draft was
      added to the RFC Editor queue.
END

Alternatively, perhaps this?:

NEW
   *  Path 3: Has been a listed author or editor (on the front page) of
      at least 2 IETF stream RFCs, published or approved and in the RFC
      Editor queue, within the last 5 years prior to the day the call for
      NomCom volunteers is sent to the community.  For published RFCs,
      the relevant date is the date of publication.  For documents in the
      RFC Editor queue, the relevant date is the date the draft was added
      to the RFC Editor queue.
END

Section 2

                                                                 Points
   to be considered are whether the experiment has produced a
   sufficiently large and diverse pool of individuals, whether enough of
   those individuals have volunteered to produce a representative
   Nominating Committee with good knowledge of the IETF, and whether all
   the goals in Section 3 have been met.  [...]

(side note) I could imagine a scenario where the answers for some of
these points/questions might change between the NomCom being seated and
the completion of their work ... but I do not propose changing the
timeline.

   The IESG will determine and announce the consensus of this discussion
   in good time for the 2022-2023 Nominating Committee cycle to
   commence.

We may have to admit the possibility of lack of consensus ("results of
the consensus determination"), to avoid being in an impossible state
where consensus is absent, but is required before starting the 2022-2023
NomCom, but the timeline requires starting it.

Timely - much thanks for doing!