Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 18:07:40 -0400
From: The IESG <iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Message-ID: <4BE33DAC(_dot_)80803(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
| The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
| Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
| a policy statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
| action.
I have two (different types of) comments to make. First, and most
important by far, is WTF ??? I understand the need for IESG "Statements"
from time to time, but the very worst thing to possibly to be making such
statements about is the process by which the IESG (and more of course) is
selected - if there was anything about which there's an obvious and clear
conflict of interest, it is this.
This is an issue that must be sent to a working group to decide - and in
the interim, since we know that working groups take time to resolve issues,
this should be handled in the standard way that nomcom questions are
handled - by the nomcom chair making a decision (after taking advice from
wherever he or she deems necessary).
That the IESG have considered making a statement on this issue to the
extent of sending a last call on one appalls me - and suggests to me that
the incoming nomcom is going to have a lot of work to do, as there it
seems as if there are not many incumbents who should be returned.
That said, to the issue itself, for whatever working group is eventually
tasked with dealing with this issue - I would expect among a general
overhaul of the nomcom member eligibility rules - it has been 6 years now
since 3777 was published, plenty of time to consider how well it is working,
and whether the environment has changed enough to need a change - the day
pass thing for IETF meetings being one of many changes in the IETF environment
in the past 6 years.
| RFC 3777 requires that voting members of the nominating committee
| (NomCom) be selected from volunteers that have attended at least three
| of the last five IETF meetings.
Yes, since it is important, I am going to quote the entire relevant
section from section 4 of 3777 .... (it is actually split over 2 pages in
the RFC, I deleted the page break, but otherwise this is cut & paste) ...
14. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.
The 5 meetings are the five most recent meetings that ended prior
to the date on which the solicitation for nominating committee
volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community.
The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that
volunteers have met the attendance requirement.
Volunteers must provide their full name, email address, and
primary company or organization affiliation (if any) when
volunteering.
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 IAOC is conducting a day pass
| experiment, making it necessary to augment the NomCom eligibility rules
| to address IETF participants that make use of a day pass.
I am not sure that follows. Nowhere in 3777 does it define what "attended"
means - it has typically been implemented as "paid to attend" (so the
person's name is in the list of registered attendees) but that is certainly
not what 3777 says - it says "attended" and just "attended".
To the best of my knowledge there hasn't ever been a case where the
secretariat has said "person X doesn't qualify as they didn't attend
enough of the relevant 5 meetings" to have X reply "Yes, I was there,
I just didn't bother registering, and attended without paying".
If that is what happened, and can be demonstrated, then personally I think
X is qualified for the nomcom - certainly the reason for section 14 in
3777 isn't related to seeking more ways to make people want to pay and
so enrich the IETF, it is to ensure the potential nomcom member has enough
IETF experience to be able to properly judge the nominees - handing over
cash to the secretariat is irrelevant to that purpose.
| The IESG observes that attending a single day of the IETF meeting is not
| sufficient for a new participant to learn the culture of the IETF or the
| qualities that would make an effective IETF leader.
Most probably not, but on no reading of 3777 could a single day possibly
qualify someone for noncom membership - the very minimum would be 3 days
(3 meetings, at a day each) - or perhaps 3 meetings at 5 minutes each,
to collect the (fully paid) registration packet and leave...
| In the context of the day pass experiment, this is interpreted to mean:
|
| 14. IETF participants must have attended at least 3 of the last 5
| IETF meetings in order to volunteer, and that use of a day pass
| does not count as IETF meeting attendance.
Frankly, this intermixing of the experience issue, and payment, is absurd.
What you're saying is that someone who pays for 1 day, but also attends
Sunday, and hangs around the hallways, and perhaps gets into a few "other
day" WG meetings (without payment) is less qualified (has gained less IETF
experience) than someone who pays for the entire meeting, but only attends
the opening plenary, then takes off somewhere else for the rest of the week,
That's bogus.
"Attend" has to go back to meaning "attend" and be completely divorced from
"paid", which is irrelevant.
Quite likely the definition of attending needs to change (well, that is, we
probably need to have a definition) - perhaps what might count are the number
of blue sheets signed (or data collected via RFID or however it's done these
days) and that potential nomcom members need to have attended at least N
plenaries and M working group meetings in the past Y years (or something
like that) instead of the bland undefined "attended 3 of the last 5 meetings"
however that gets interpreted.
Of course, all of this is for a working group to discuss and decide, and
certainly not for the IESG - the IESG should *never* make any pronouncements
that affect the nomcom operation, only a properly formed working group with
noomcom process issues in its charter should ever do that.
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf