idnits 2.17.1 draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (13 October 2020) is 1290 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 8788 (Obsoleted by RFC 9389) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 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: 16 April 2021 Trinity College Dublin 6 13 October 2020 8 Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility 9 draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06 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 reduction in 19 face-to-face meetings. The experiment is of fixed duration and will 20 apply to one, or at most two, Nominating Committee cycles. This 21 document temporarily varies the rules in RFC 8713. 23 Discussion Venues 25 This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. 27 Discussion of this document takes place on the ad hoc mailing list 28 (eligibility-discuss@ietf.org), which is archived at 29 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/ 30 (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/). 32 Source for this draft can be found at https://github.com/sftcd/elig 33 (https://github.com/sftcd/elig). 35 Status of This Memo 37 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 38 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 40 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 41 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 42 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 43 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 45 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 46 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 47 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 48 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 49 This Internet-Draft will expire on 16 April 2021. 51 Copyright Notice 53 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 54 document authors. All rights reserved. 56 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 57 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 58 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 59 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 60 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 61 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 62 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 63 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 68 2. Term and Evaluation of the Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 3. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 4. Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 4.1. Clarifying Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 5. Omitted Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 Appendix A. Available data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 79 B.1. Draft-05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 B.2. Draft-04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 B.3. Draft-03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 B.4. Draft-02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 83 B.5. Draft-01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 84 B.6. Draft-00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 87 1. Introduction 89 According to [RFC8713], the IETF Nominating Committee is populated 90 from a pool of volunteers with a specified record of attendance at 91 IETF plenary meetings, assumed when that document was approved to be 92 face-to-face meetings. In view of the cancellation of the IETF 107, 93 108, 109 and 110 face-to-face meetings, the risk of future 94 cancellations, the probability of less frequent face-to-face meetings 95 in future in support of sustainability, and a general increase in 96 remote participation, this document defines a process experiment 98 [RFC3933] of fixed duration (described in Section 2) to use modified 99 and additional criteria to qualify volunteers. 101 Also according to [RFC8713], the qualification for signing a 102 community petition for the recall of certain IETF office-holders is 103 that same as for the Nominating Committee. This document does not 104 change that. 106 2. Term and Evaluation of the Experiment 108 The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 through 110 meetings means 109 that the current criteria are in any case seriously perturbed for the 110 next two years. The experiment therefore needs to start as soon as 111 possible. However, the experiment did not apply to the selection of 112 the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee, which was performed according to 113 [RFC8788]. 115 The experiment will initially cover the IETF Nominating Committee 116 cycle starting in 2021. As soon as the 2021-2022 Nominating 117 Committee is seated, the IESG must consult the current and previous 118 Nominating Committee chairs and publish a report on the results of 119 the experiment. Points to be considered are whether the experiment 120 has produced a sufficiently large and diverse pool of individuals, 121 and whether enough of those individuals have volunteered to produce a 122 representative Nominating Committee with good knowledge of the IETF. 124 The IESG must then also begin a community discussion of whether to: 126 1. Amend [RFC8713] in time for the 2022 Nominating Committee cycle; 127 or 129 2. Prolong the current experiment for a second year; or 131 3. Run a different experiment for the next nominating cycle; or 133 4. Revert to [RFC8713]. 135 The IESG will determine and announce the consensus of this discussion 136 in good time for the 2022 Nominating Committee cycle to commence. 138 3. Goals 140 The goals of the modified and additional criteria are as follows: 142 * Mitigate the issue of active remote (or rarely in-person) 143 participants being disenfranchised in the NomCom and recall 144 processes. 146 * Prepare for an era in which face-to-face plenary meetings are less 147 frequent (thus extending the issue to many, perhaps a majority, of 148 participants). 150 * Ensure that those eligible are true "participants" with enough 151 current understanding of IETF practices and people to make 152 informed decisions. 154 * The criteria must be algorithmic so that the Secretariat can check 155 them mechanically against available data. 157 4. Criteria 159 There will be several alternative paths to qualification, replacing 160 the single criterion in section 4.14 of [RFC8713]. Any one of the 161 paths is sufficient, unless the person is otherwise disqualified 162 under section 4.15 of [RFC8713]: 164 * Path 1: The person has registered for and attended 3 out of the 165 last 5 IETF meetings. For meetings held entirely online, online 166 registration and attendance counts as attendance. For the 167 2021-2022 Nominating Committee, the meetings concerned will be 168 IETF 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110. 170 * Path 2: Has been a WG Chair or Secretary within the last 3 years. 172 * Path 3: Has been a listed author of at least 2 IETF stream RFCs 173 within the last 5 years. An Internet-Draft that has been approved 174 by the IESG and is in the RFC Editor queue counts. 176 Notes: 178 * Path 1 corresponds approximately to [RFC8713], modified as per 179 [RFC8788]. 181 * Path 3 extends to 5 years because it commonly takes 3 or 4 years 182 for new documents to be approved in the IETF stream, so 3 years 183 would be too short a sampling period. 185 4.1. Clarifying Detail 187 Path 1 does not qualify people who register and attend face-to-face 188 meetings remotely. That is, it does not qualify remote attendees at 189 IETF 106, because that meeting took place prior to any question of 190 cancelling meetings, so the rules of [RFC8713] apply. 192 If the IESG prolongs this experiment for a second year, as allowed by 193 Section 2, the IESG will also clarify how Path 1 applies to IETF 111, 194 112 and 113. 196 5. Omitted Criteria 198 Certain criteria were rejected as not truly indicating effective IETF 199 participation, or as being unlikely to significantly expand the 200 volunteer pool. These included authorship of individual or WG- 201 adopted Internet-Drafts, sending email to IETF lists, reviewing 202 drafts, acting as a BOF Chair, and acting in an external role for the 203 IETF (liaisons etc.). 205 One path, service in the IESG or IAB within the last 5 years, was 206 found to have no benefit since historical data show that such people 207 always appear to be qualified by another path. 209 Since the criteria must be measurable by the Secretariat, no 210 qualitative evaluation of an individual's contributions is 211 considered. 213 6. IANA Considerations 215 This document makes no request of IANA. 217 7. Security Considerations 219 This document should not affect the security of the Internet. 221 8. Acknowledgements 223 Useful comments were received from Alissa Cooper, Adrian Farrel, Bron 224 Gondwana, John Klensin, Warren Kumari, Eric Rescorla, Michael 225 Richardson, Rich Salz, and Martin Thomson. 227 The data analysis was mainly done by Robert Sparks. 229 9. Normative References 231 [RFC3933] Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process 232 Experiments", BCP 93, RFC 3933, DOI 10.17487/RFC3933, 233 November 2004, . 235 [RFC8713] Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood, 236 Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection, 237 Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF 238 Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713, 239 DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020, 240 . 242 [RFC8788] Leiba, B., "Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating 243 Committee", BCP 10, RFC 8788, DOI 10.17487/RFC8788, May 244 2020, . 246 Appendix A. Available data 248 An analysis of how some of the above criteria would affect the number 249 of NomCom-qualified participants if applied in August 2020 has been 250 performed. The results are presented below in Venn diagrams as 251 Figure 1 to Figure 4. Note that the numbers shown differ slightly 252 from manual counts due to database mismatches, and the results were 253 not derived at the normal time of the year for NomCom formation. The 254 remote attendee lists for IETF 107 and 108 were used, although not 255 yet available on the IETF web site. 257 A specific difficulty is that the databases involved inevitably 258 contain a few inconsistencies such as duplicate entries, differing 259 versions of a person's name, and impersonal authors. (For example, 260 "IAB" qualifies under Path 3, and one actual volunteer artificially 261 appears not to qualify.) This underlines that automatically 262 generated lists of eligible and qualified people will always require 263 manual checking. 265 The first two diagrams illustrate how the new paths (2 and 3) affect 266 eligibility numbers compared to the meeting participation path (1). 267 Figure 1 gives the raw numbers, and Figure 2 removes those 268 disqualified according to RFC 8713. The actual 2020 volunteer pool 269 is shown too. 271 Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate how the new paths (2 and 3) interact 272 with each other, also before and after disqualifications. The 273 discarded path via IESG and IAB service is also shown, as path "I". 275 Diagrams will be at 276 https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06.html 278 Figure 1: All paths, before disqualification 280 Diagrams will be at 281 https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06.html 283 Figure 2: All paths, after disqualification 285 Diagrams will be at 286 https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06.html 288 Figure 3: New paths, before disqualification 290 Diagrams will be at 291 https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06.html 293 Figure 4: New paths, after disqualification 295 Appendix B. Change Log 297 This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. 299 B.1. Draft-05 to -06 301 * Allowed for IETF 110 decision 303 * Resolved open issue 305 * Removed "future work" section 307 * Editorial improvements 309 B.2. Draft-04 to -05 311 * Adjusted criteria according to comments received 313 * Removed previous path 3 315 * Renumbered paths 317 * Updated diagrams 319 * Editorial improvements 321 B.3. Draft-03 to -04 323 * Adjusted criteria according to comments received 325 * Shortened period to one year (initially) 326 * Renumbered paths 328 * Updated diagrams 330 * Editorial improvements 332 B.4. Draft-02 to -03 334 * Adjusted criteria according to comments received 336 * Added data 338 B.5. Draft-01 to -02 340 * Made this an RFC 3933 process experiment 342 * Eliminated path based on directorate reviews, used to be: "Has 343 submitted at least 6 reviews as a member of an official IETF 344 review team within the last 3 years." 346 * Other comments from IETF107 virtual gendispatch meeting handled 348 B.6. Draft-00 to -01 350 * Added author 352 Authors' Addresses 354 Brian E. Carpenter 355 The University of Auckland 356 School of Computer Science 357 PB 92019 358 Auckland 1142 359 New Zealand 361 Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com 363 Stephen Farrell 364 Trinity College Dublin 365 College Green 366 Dublin 367 Ireland 369 Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie