idnits 2.17.1 draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 252 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (28 March 2020) is 1489 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group B.E. Carpenter 3 Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland 4 Intended status: Experimental S. Farrell 5 Expires: 29 September 2020 Trinity College Dublin 6 28 March 2020 8 Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility 9 draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-02 11 Abstract 13 This document defines a process experiment under RFC 3933 that 14 temporarily updates the criteria for qualifying volunteers to 15 participate in the IETF Nominating Committee. It therefore also 16 updates the criteria for qualifying signatories to a community recall 17 petition. The purpose is to make the criteria more flexible in view 18 of increasing remote participation in the IETF and a probable decline 19 in face-to-face meetings. This document temporarily varies the rules 20 in RFC 8713. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 September 2020. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/ 46 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 47 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 48 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 49 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 50 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 51 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction 56 2. Term of the Experiment 57 3. Goals 58 4. Criteria 59 5. Open Questions 60 6. Possible Future Work 61 7. IANA Considerations 62 8. Security Considerations 63 9. Acknowledgements 64 10. Normative References 65 Appendix A. Change Log 66 A.1. Draft-01 to -02 67 A.2. Draft-00 to -01 68 Authors' Addresses 70 1. Introduction 72 According to [RFC8713], the IETF Nominating Committee is populated 73 from a pool of volunteers with a specified record of attendance at 74 IETF plenary face-to-face meetings. In view of the unexpected 75 cancellation of the IETF 107 meeting, the risk of future 76 cancellations, the probability of less frequent meetings in future in 77 support of sustainability, and a general increase in remote 78 participation, this document defines a process experiment [RFC3933] 79 of fixed duration to use additional criteria to qualify volunteers. 81 Also according to [RFC8713], the qualification for signing a 82 community petition for the recall of certain IETF office-holders is 83 that same as for the Nominating Committee. This document does not 84 change that, but see Section 6. 86 The source for this is at https://github.com/sftcd/elig/ and PRs are 87 welcome there. Discussion on the eligibility-discuss@ietf.org list 88 is also welcome. 90 2. Term of the Experiment 92 The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting, and the risk of 93 IETF 108 also being cancelled, mean that the current criteria are in 94 any case seriously perturbed for the next two years. The experiment 95 therefore needs to start as soon as possible. However, the 96 experiment does not apply to the selection of the 2020-2021 97 Nominating Committee. 99 The experiment will cover the two IETF Nominating Committee cycles 100 starting in 2021 and 2022. As soon as the 2022-2023 Nominating 101 Committee is seated, the IESG must consult the Nominating Committee 102 chairs involved and publish a report on the results of the 103 experiment. The IESG must then also begin a community discussion of 104 whether to amend [RFC8713] in time for the 2023 Nominating Committee 105 cycle. 107 3. Goals 109 The goals of the additional criteria are as follows: 111 * Mitigate the issue of active remote (or rarely in-person) 112 participants being disenfranchised in the NomCom and recall 113 processes. 115 * Prepare for an era in which face-to-face plenary meetings are less 116 frequent (thus extending the issue to many, perhaps a majority, of 117 participants). 119 * Ensure that those eligible are true "participants" with enough 120 current understanding of IETF practice and people to make informed 121 decisions. 123 * The criteria must be algorithmic so that the Secretariat can check 124 them mechanically. 126 4. Criteria 128 There will be several alternative paths to qualification, replacing 129 the single criterion in section 4.14 of [RFC8713]. Any one of the 130 paths is sufficient, unless the person is otherwise disqualified 131 under section 4.15 of [RFC8713]: 133 * Path 1: As per [RFC8713], the person has attended 3 out of the 134 last 5 in-person IETF meetings. 136 * Path 2: Has been a WG Chair or Secretary within the last 3 years. 138 * Path 3: (Feedback on path 3 from draft-01 was uniformly negative 139 so ignore this, we'll leave placeholder text here for now just to 140 avoid renumbering.) 142 * Path 4: Has served in the IESG or IAB, or has been appointed to a 143 formal role by the IESG or IAB, within the last 5 years. 145 * Path 5: Has been a listed author of at least 2 IETF stream RFCs 146 within the last 5 years. A draft that has been approved by the 147 IESG and is in the RFC Editor queue counts. 149 5. Open Questions 151 * Should we also consider authorship of drafts formally adopted by a 152 WG? 154 * Should BOF chairs qualify for Path 2? 156 * Should we consider remote meeting attendance and if so how do we 157 measure it? Is there any difference from this point of view 158 between plenary and interim meetings? 160 * Should we consider how many nomcom voting members qualify via 161 which paths? For example, would it be ok if all 10 nomcom voting 162 members qualified via path 4 in one year? 164 * We have not yet done an analysis of the effects of the criteria 165 described here based on information from the public record and 166 IETF datatracker. That should be done before this process 167 experiment starts. 169 Certain criteria were rejected as not truly indicating effective IETF 170 participation. These included authorship of individual Internet- 171 Drafts, sending email to IETF lists, reviewing drafts, etc. Since 172 the criteria must be objectively and mechanically measurable, no 173 qualitative evaluation of an individual's contributions is 174 considered. 176 6. Possible Future Work 178 * Combined paths (e.g., a person who partly satisfies Path 2 and 179 Path 5); otherwise known as a "points system". That seems to 180 involve work/complexity either for the secretariat or for the 181 volunteer. 183 * Tweaking the "time decay" in each of the path definitions that 184 ensures recent participation is more highly valued. 186 * Separating the NomCom volunteer criteria from the recall 187 petitioner criteria. 189 7. IANA Considerations 191 This document makes no request of IANA. 193 8. Security Considerations 195 This document should not affect the security of the Internet. 197 9. Acknowledgements 199 Useful comments were received from John Klensin, Warren Kumari, 200 Michael Richardson, Martin Thomson, (to be completed) 202 10. Normative References 204 [RFC3933] Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process 205 Experiments", BCP 93, RFC 3933, DOI 10.17487/RFC3933, 206 November 2004, . 208 [RFC8713] Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood, 209 Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection, 210 Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF 211 Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713, 212 DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020, 213 . 215 Appendix A. Change Log 217 A.1. Draft-01 to -02 219 * Made this an RFC 3933 process experiment 221 * Eliminated path based on directorate reviews, used to be: "Has 222 submitted at least 6 reviews as a member of an official IETF 223 review team within the last 3 years." 225 * Other comments from IETF107 virtual gendispatch meeting handled 227 A.2. Draft-00 to -01 229 * Added author 231 Authors' Addresses 233 Brian E. Carpenter 234 The University of Auckland 235 School of Computer Science, PB 92019 236 Auckland 1142 237 New Zealand 239 Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com 241 Stephen Farrell 242 Trinity College Dublin 243 College Green 244 Dublin 245 Ireland 247 Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie