Gendispatch @ IETF107
Wednesday, March 25 2020, 21:40-22:40 UTC
Chairs: Francesca Palombini, Pete Resnick

Recordings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIeu6T0S9BQ
Jabber room logs: https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/gendispatch/2020-03-25.html
 
Minute takers:
    * Rich Salz
 
Jabber scribe:
    * Bron Gondwana
 
 
**********************************************************************
          Agenda & Minutes
**********************************************************************
 
* Introduction
(Chairs)
 
* Definition of new tags for relations between RFCs
(Mirja Kuehlewind)
        * draft: [Definition of new tags for relations between
        RFCs](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/ ) *
        discussion:
 
* Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility
(Brian Carpenter)
        * draft: [Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee
        Eligibility](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand/ )
        * discussion:
 
* AOB
 
MINUTES
 
Agenda Bashing -- nothing
 
draft-kuehlewind-update-tag, Mirja Kuehlewind
John Kleinsin worries this will make lack of definition worse; Mirja disagrees.
Spencer Dawkins - does it make sense to deprecate Updates in RFC text, and move it to meta-data
Mohit Sethi Asks for clarification on the meaning of the proposed tags - what would be the process around changes.
Mark Nottingham: it's hard to discuss this without data. (Would like to see Suresh's results) Is Extends handled by registries?
Is See Also duplicating References?  This feels like a band-aid. Discussion about existing use of Updates
ACTION: Suresh will post something about his review of current Updates
rfc-interest mailing list is place to discuss; seeking more input; not ready for "real" dispatch yet. Might be IESG action or AD sponsor, although discomfort with that step.
Spencer argues for removing Updates from being in the RFC, so that it is all meta-data.
 
draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand, Brian Carpenter
Ted Lemon: who would be eligible for nomcom because of this document that wouldn't be without it? 
Brian: it pushes the eligibility criteria out (esp if 108 is not F2F) making it more stale. But maybe we need to run the script and see.
Bron: 100-point check like, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_point_check
Spencer: Suggest a process experiment (RFC 3933) as a way to get started since if 108 and 109 are only virtual, then nobody is eligible under existing criteria, unless we have hacks like "three of the last five meetings that actually happened". 
Cullen: Agree we need to do something, not as urgently as others. Concerned this will distort other processes (co-authors, etc)
Lucy Lynch: reminder nomcom chair also subject to this criteria; concerned if pool ends up shrinking, will get further coalescing(?) Also mention that mix of in-person and video interviews bias selection.
Brian agrees with latter, but out of scope
Martin: what we measure is what we get; don't think we need very short-term solution
Toerless Eckert: what is impact of 107 being cancelled, do we know?
Stephen: got concrete feedback, working on next revision. We should fix this properly and not "forget" it. Current situation is already unfair to some participants.
Alissa Cooper: what is the reason for the urgency, is it because people are concerned that in the new year they will find that they didn't have the information to know what they should have done?
Pete: Any objection to keeping it on the eligibity-discuss list, and making a quick decision as to what's next?
Barry: will be on IESG discussion, for what to do for next nomcom; deadline likely in April.
AD sponsorship doesn't have clear consensus if that's what is suggested.