Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> Fri, 07 May 2010 12:00 UTC
Return-Path: <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A363A6851; Fri, 7 May 2010 05:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.552
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id czKDvtP6-LPZ; Fri, 7 May 2010 05:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jade.coe.psu.ac.th (unknown [202.29.151.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559203A6887; Fri, 7 May 2010 05:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (jade.coe.psu.AC.TH [IPv6:2001:3c8:9007:1::21]) by jade.coe.psu.ac.th with ESMTP id o47Bwg2p008758; Fri, 7 May 2010 18:58:44 +0700 (ICT)
Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by epsilon.noi.kre.to (8.14.3/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o47BvkAm005877; Fri, 7 May 2010 18:58:07 +0700 (ICT)
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
In-Reply-To: <4BE33DAC.80803@ietf.org>
References: <4BE33DAC.80803@ietf.org> <4BD84FAE.80209@vigilsec.com> <4BD85EED.9080702@juniper.net> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040214565A@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <4BD87AF3.2020806@piuha.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 18:57:46 +0700
Message-ID: <1302.1273233466@epsilon.noi.kre.to>
Sender: kre@munnari.OZ.AU
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 12:00:23 -0000
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 18:07:40 -0400 From: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> Message-ID: <4BE33DAC.80803@ietf.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
- Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Exper… The IESG
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… David Morris
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… SM
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Xiangsong Cui
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Melinda Shore
- RE: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Glen Zorn
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Robert Elz
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Cullen Jennings
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Cullen Jennings
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… David Morris
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Eliot Lear
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Dave CROCKER
- RE: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Ross Callon
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… David Morris
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Doug Barton
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… SM
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Scott Brim
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Donald Eastlake
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Russ Housley
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Eric Burger
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Kurt Zeilenga
- RE: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Ross Callon
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Donald Eastlake
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Edward Lewis
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Samuel Weiler
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Ted Hardie
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Donald Eastlake
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… David Morris
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… SM
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Robert Elz
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… David Morris
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Ted Hardie
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Doug Barton
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Ted Hardie
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Russ Housley
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… todd glassey
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Doug Barton
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Michael Richardson
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Martin Rex
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Robert Elz
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Xiangsong Cui
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Donald Eastlake
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Phil Roberts
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Eliot Lear
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Robert Elz
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… The IESG
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Doug Barton
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Michael StJohns
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… David Morris
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Ray Pelletier
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Russ Housley
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Doug Barton
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Russ Housley
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Doug Barton
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Russ Housley
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Lixia Zhang
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Doug Barton
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Eliot Lear
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… Robert Elz
- Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass E… SM