it is somewhat odd that meeting attendance is the criterion in a community which claims that the mailing lists are the place where work is done. and, of course, this is re-discussed.
Yes, there is a contradiction there. Sort of. However for RIPE, we're appointing a Chair whose responsibilities largely focus around RIPE meetings, not the work or policy-making that supposedly gets done on RIPE's mailing lists. Drawing from the people who regularly participate in RIPE meetings for both the Nomcom and Chair seems the most sensible choice to me.
i was merely pointing out yet another ietf procedural oddity. i am not against the ripe community using N out of M meetings as the principal qualifier for a nomcom pool. i suspect there might be some discussion of *which* meetings from folk distant from the amsterdam/rome/lisbon axis. i am in less of a position to take sides in that one than a scot is. :) randy