At 04:57 AM 5/7/2010, Robert Elz wrote:
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.
The idea behind this statement is to avoid
opening a discussion about NomCom. The IESG
probably sees the need to step in to solve the
problem. We could view this as a statement to
clarify an administrative issue. However the
subject line says "policy statement". The IESG
does not get to decide on policy for the IETF. That's done through BCPs.
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).
Yes. But the IESG hasn't been using working
groups for non-technical issues. The better
course, as you mentioned above, is to leave it to
the current NomCom Chair to see whether there is
a problem and how to address it.
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.
This is the kind of issue that gets forgotten
after some time. There is a way to send a
message to the IESG if you appalled. :-) That requires NomCom qualification.
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.
The eligibility rules are arbitrary. There is no best way for eligibility.
| 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.
The problem is that this turned into a long
running experiment. The question of NomCom
eligibility was raised well after the first
run. You may wish to ask the IAOC why it ran an
experiment without giving enough thought to how it affects NomCom.
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".
Do we really have to define what "attended"
means? If it is going to mean "paid" to attend",
I would strongly object as the ability to pay
favors a class of participants. In the text you
quoted from RFC 3777, it is mentioned that the
IETF Secretariat determines whether the attendee
fulfills the requirements. That makes it an
administrative matter. By using this statement
for more than a one-time experiment, the IESG
would change that into a way to disqualify
attendees outside the Standards Process.
| 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...
The path to evil is paved with good
intentions. And that's where we are going if we
have to define the requirements for understanding
IETF culture. It is not up to the IESG to
observe what constitutes sufficient exposure to IETF culture.
Frankly, this intermixing of the experience issue, and payment, is absurd.
Yes.
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.
It is convenient for the IESG to make these
proclamations. The "constitutionality" has never been tested.
At 07:01 PM 5/6/2010, Melinda Shore wrote:
True, but it seems to me that on average that doesn't/
won't happen, and given the size of the nomcom this isn't
likely to be an issue.
The larger question is whether NomCom is
representative of the IETF Community or whether
it should be shaped to protect a vision of the
IETF as viewed by the old boys club.
I used to participate in every meeting, took a few years
off, and then went to Anaheim. Despite being on mailing
lists and having been an active participant in the past,
the general tone of things had shifted in ways I hadn't
anticipated. In particular, I hadn't really appreciated
The wind of change is noticeable on the mailing lists too.
the way that the lowly, casual bar bof had turned into a
*Bar* *BOF*. I think being at meetings is important if
you want to participate in shaping the future of the
organization. I also think that's unfortunate, but it is
what it is and better to be realistic about it.
That only works if WG is not turned into Walled
Gardens. It could turn into that if participants
stick to their area (IETF Areas) of interest.
At 08:10 AM 5/7/2010, Jari Arkko wrote:
Dave, Kre: I'm not so convinced that there would
be any problem even if the IESG (or IAOC)
decided how to interpret the RFC-specified rules
in a practical situation. However, I don't think
we need to argue this because there is an
ongoing Last Call and the intention is to ask
the community for feedback and then make a decision. Even if we did
But neither the IESG nor the IAOC are empowered
to take this decision. If you want to sell this
as a practical situation, you should apply this
"rule" to the next NomCom selection only.
At 08:59 AM 5/7/2010, Eliot Lear wrote:
As I recall, the basis of the 3/5 rule (and
previously the 3/3 rule) was to avoid ballot
stuffing, I do not see substantial risk of
allowing those who have used day passes to be
eligible for NOMCOM, especially considering that
in all likelihood nobody is going to do that
more than once. As such I oppose the proposed
change, especially since it seems to boil down
to money, since someone who pays for a full week
and only goes the day would be treated
differently. We would call that "buying a vote."
The change in policy for meeting locations makes
the 3/5 rule less favorable for some participants
who might have used the Day Pass to stuff the ballot.
At 09:29 AM 5/7/2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
There is a rather fundamental "constitutional"
difference between having the IESG assess
community rough consensus, versus having the
IESG ask for input and then make the decision
based on IESG preferences. In the first, the
formal authority resides with the community; in
the second it resides with the IESG.
Right. Some comments posted on this Last Call points to the second.
At 08:14 AM 5/7/2010, John C Klensin wrote:
published RFC is not a requirement to carry out an experiment or
explain its details. Of course, that case would be much
stronger if there were a real description of the experiment and
evaluation conditions, but...
There were two experiments that gained attention,
this one and the RFID one which raises questions
about privacy. The IESG decided that a fix is
needed for the NomCom question. The privacy
question doesn't look like a priority yet. The
IETF should be used by now to experiments written
on paper napkins and calling to survey monkeys for evaluation.
Given that remote participation is viewed by some
as a financial liability to the IETF, the following suggestions can be ignored.
It is suggested that:
(i) This Last Call is rescinded.
(ii) The NomCom Chair posts a statement about
the experiment and determines whether it is the
consensus of the IETF community that the
experiment should not be taken into account for the next NomCom run.
(iii) If any IETF participant, it's not up to
the IESG or IAOC, views that there is a problem
to be solved, submit an update to RFC 3777 for the long term solution.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf