idnits 2.17.1 draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-10.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 (7 January 2021) is 1203 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 8788 (Obsoleted by RFC 9389) Summary: 1 error (**), 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: 11 July 2021 Trinity College Dublin 6 7 January 2021 8 Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility 9 draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-10 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, consecutive Nominating Committee 21 cycles, starting in 2021. This document temporarily varies the rules 22 in RFC 8713. 24 Discussion Venues 26 This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. 28 Discussion of this document takes place on the ad hoc mailing list 29 (eligibility-discuss@ietf.org), which is archived at 30 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/ 31 (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/). 33 Source for this draft can be found at https://github.com/sftcd/elig 34 (https://github.com/sftcd/elig). 36 Status of This Memo 38 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 39 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 41 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 42 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 43 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 44 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 46 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 47 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 48 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 49 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 51 This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 July 2021. 53 Copyright Notice 55 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 56 document authors. All rights reserved. 58 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 59 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 60 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 61 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 62 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 63 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 64 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 65 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 67 Table of Contents 69 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 2. Term and Evaluation of the Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 71 3. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 4. Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 4.1. Clarifying Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 5. Omitted Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 Appendix A. Available data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 81 B.1. Draft-09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 82 B.2. Draft-08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 83 B.3. Draft-07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 84 B.4. Draft-06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 85 B.5. Draft-05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 86 B.6. Draft-04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 87 B.7. Draft-03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 88 B.8. Draft-02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 89 B.9. Draft-01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 90 B.10. Draft-00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 91 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 93 1. Introduction 95 According to [RFC8713], the IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom) is 96 populated from a pool of volunteers with a specified record of 97 attendance at IETF plenary meetings, which were assumed to be face- 98 to-face meetings when that document was approved. In view of the 99 cancellation of the IETF 107, 108, 109 and 110 face-to-face meetings, 100 the risk of future cancellations, the probability of less frequent 101 face-to-face meetings in future in support of sustainability, and a 102 general increase in remote participation, this document defines a 103 process experiment [RFC3933] of fixed duration (described in 104 Section 2) to use modified and additional criteria to qualify 105 volunteers. 107 During this experiment, the eligibility criteria for signing recall 108 petitions - which [RFC8713] defines to be the same as those for 109 NomCom eligibility - are consequently also modified as described in 110 this document. This experiment has no other effect on the recall 111 process. 113 2. Term and Evaluation of the Experiment 115 The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 through 110 meetings means 116 that the current criteria are in any case seriously perturbed for at 117 least two years. The experiment therefore needs to start as soon as 118 possible. However, the experiment did not apply to the selection of 119 the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee, which was performed according to 120 [RFC8788]. 122 The experiment will initially cover the IETF Nominating Committee 123 cycle that begins in 2021. As soon as the entire 2021-2022 124 Nominating Committee is seated, the IESG must consult the 2021-2022 125 Nominating Committee chair and the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee 126 chair (who will maintain NomCom confidentiality) and publish a report 127 on the results of the experiment. Points to be considered are 128 whether the experiment has produced a sufficiently large and diverse 129 pool of individuals, whether enough of those individuals have 130 volunteered to produce a representative Nominating Committee with 131 good knowledge of the IETF, and whether all the goals in Section 3 132 have been met. If possible, a comparison with results from the 133 previous procedure (i.e., RFC 8713) should be made. 135 The IESG must then also begin a community discussion of whether to: 137 1. Amend [RFC8713] in time for the 2022-2023 Nominating Committee 138 cycle; or 140 2. Prolong the current experiment for a second and final year with 141 additional clarifications specific to the 2022-2023 cycle; or 143 3. Run a different experiment for the next nominating cycle; or 145 4. Revert to [RFC8713]. 147 The IESG will announce the results of the consensus determination of 148 this discussion in good time for the 2022-2023 Nominating Committee 149 cycle to commence. 151 In the event of prolongation of this experiment for a second year, 152 the IESG will repeat the consultation, report and community 153 discussion process accordingly, but this document lapses at the end 154 of the 2022-2023 Nominating Committee cycle. 156 3. Goals 158 The goals of the modified and additional criteria are as follows: 160 * Mitigate the issue of active remote (or rarely in-person) 161 participants being disenfranchised in the NomCom and recall 162 processes. 164 * Enable the selection of a 2021-2022 NomCom, and possibly a 165 2022-2023 NomCom, when it is impossible for anyone to have 166 attended three out of the last five IETF meetings in person. 168 * Prepare for an era in which face-to-face plenary meetings are less 169 frequent (thus extending the issue to many, perhaps a majority, of 170 participants). 172 * Ensure that those eligible have enough current understanding of 173 IETF practices and people to make informed decisions. 175 * Provide algorithmic criteria, so that the Secretariat can check 176 them mechanically against available data. 178 4. Criteria 180 This experiment specifies several alternative paths to qualification, 181 replacing the single criterion in section 4.14 of [RFC8713]. Any one 182 of the paths is sufficient, unless the person is otherwise 183 disqualified under section 4.15 of [RFC8713]: 185 * Path 1: The person has registered for and attended 3 out of the 186 last 5 IETF meetings. For meetings held entirely online, online 187 registration and attendance counts as attendance. For the 188 2021-2022 Nominating Committee, the meetings concerned will be 189 IETF 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110. Attendance is as determined by 190 the record keeping of the secretariat for in-person meetings, and 191 based on being a registered person who logged in for at least one 192 session of an online IETF meeting. 194 * Path 2: Has been a Working Group Chair or Secretary within the 3 195 years prior to the day the call for NomCom volunteers is sent to 196 the community. 198 * Path 3: Has been a listed author or editor (on the front page) of 199 at least 2 IETF stream RFCs within the last 5 years prior to the 200 day the call for NomCom volunteers is sent to the community. An 201 Internet-Draft that has been approved by the IESG and is in the 202 RFC Editor queue counts the same as a published RFC, with the 203 relevant date being the date the draft was added to the RFC Editor 204 queue. For avoidance of doubt, the 5 year timer extends back to 205 the date 5 years before the date when the call for NomCom 206 volunteers is sent to the community. 208 Notes: 210 * Path 1 corresponds approximately to [RFC8713], modified as per 211 [RFC8788]. 213 * Path 3 includes approved drafts, since some documents spend a long 214 time in the RFC Editor's queue. 216 * Path 3 extends to 5 years because it commonly takes 3 or 4 years 217 for new documents to be approved in the IETF stream, so 3 years 218 would be too short a sampling period. 220 * All the required data are available to the IETF Secretariat from 221 meeting attendance records or the IETF data tracker. 223 4.1. Clarifying Detail 225 Path 1 does not qualify people who register and attend face-to-face 226 meetings remotely. That is, it does not qualify remote attendees at 227 IETF 106, because that meeting took place prior to any question of 228 cancelling meetings. 230 If the IESG prolongs this experiment for a second year, as allowed by 231 Section 2, the IESG must also clarify how Path 1 applies to IETF 111, 232 112 and 113. 234 5. Omitted Criteria 236 During community discussions of this document, certain criteria were 237 rejected as not truly indicating effective IETF participation, or as 238 being unlikely to significantly expand the volunteer pool. These 239 included authorship of individual or Working-Group-adopted Internet- 240 Drafts, sending email to IETF lists, reviewing drafts, acting as a 241 BOF Chair, and acting in an external role for the IETF (liaisons 242 etc.). 244 One path, service in the IESG or IAB within the last 5 years, was 245 found to have no benefit since historical data show that such people 246 always appear to be qualified by another path. 248 Since the criteria must be measurable by the Secretariat, no 249 qualitative evaluation of an individual's contributions is 250 considered. 252 6. IANA Considerations 254 This document makes no request of IANA. 256 7. Security Considerations 258 This document should not affect the security of the Internet. 260 8. Acknowledgements 262 Useful comments were received from Abdussalam Baryun, Alissa Cooper, 263 Lars Eggert, Adrian Farrel, Bron Gondwana, Russ Housley, Chrsitian 264 Huitema, Ben Kaduk, John Klensin, Victor Kuarsingh, Warren Kumari, 265 Barry Leiba, Eric Rescorla, Michael Richardson, Rich Salz, Ines 266 Robles, Martin Thomson and Magnus Westerlund. 268 The data analysis was mainly done by Robert Sparks. Carsten Bormann 269 showed how to represent Venn diagrams in ASCII art. 271 9. Normative References 273 [RFC3933] Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process 274 Experiments", BCP 93, RFC 3933, DOI 10.17487/RFC3933, 275 November 2004, . 277 [RFC8713] Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood, 278 Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection, 279 Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF 280 Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713, 281 DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020, 282 . 284 [RFC8788] Leiba, B., "Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating 285 Committee", BCP 10, RFC 8788, DOI 10.17487/RFC8788, May 286 2020, . 288 Appendix A. Available data 290 An analysis of how some of the above criteria would affect the number 291 of NomCom-qualified participants if applied in August 2020 has been 292 performed. The results are presented below in Venn diagrams as 293 Figure 1 to Figure 4. Note that the numbers shown differ slightly 294 from manual counts due to database mismatches, and the results were 295 not derived at the normal time of the year for NomCom formation. The 296 remote attendee lists for IETF 107 and 108 were used, although not 297 yet available on the IETF web site. 299 A specific difficulty is that the databases involved inevitably 300 contain a few inconsistencies such as duplicate entries, differing 301 versions of a person's name, and impersonal authors. (For example, 302 "IAB" qualifies under Path 3, and one actual volunteer artificially 303 appears not to qualify.) This underlines that automatically 304 generated lists of eligible and qualified people will always require 305 manual checking. 307 The first two diagrams illustrate how the new paths (2 and 3) affect 308 eligibility numbers compared to the meeting participation path (1). 309 Figure 1 gives the raw numbers, and Figure 2 removes those 310 disqualified according to RFC 8713. The actual 2020 volunteer pool 311 is shown too. 313 People eligible via path 1, 314 3 of 5 meetings: 842 315 +----------------------+ 316 | | 317 | 379 | 318 | +-----------+----------------+ 319 | | | | People eligible 320 | | 332 | 1104 | via paths 321 | | | | 2 or 3: 322 | +------+-----------+-------+ | 1541 323 | | | | | | 324 | | 29 | 102 | | | 325 | | | | | | 326 | | | | | | 327 +---+------+-----------+ | | 328 | | | | 329 | | 3 | | 330 | | | | 331 | +-------------------+--------+ 332 | | 333 | 1 | 334 | | 335 +--------------------------+ 336 2020 actual volunteers: 135 338 Figure 1: All paths, before disqualification 340 Qualified via path 1, 341 3 of 5 meetings: 806 342 +----------------------+ 343 | | 344 | 375 | 345 | +-----------+----------------+ 346 | | | | Qualified 347 | | 300 | 1104 | via paths 348 | | | | 2 or 3: 349 | +------+-----------+-------+ | 1509 350 | | | | | | 351 | | 29 | 102 | | | 352 | | | | | | 353 | | | | | | 354 +---+------+-----------+ | | 355 | | | | 356 | | 3 | | 357 | | | | 358 | +-------------------+--------+ 359 | | 360 | 1 | 361 | | 362 +--------------------------+ 363 2020 actual volunteers: 135 365 Figure 2: All paths, after disqualification 367 Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate how the new paths (2 and 3) interact 368 with each other, also before and after disqualifications. The 369 discarded path via IESG and IAB service (Section 5) is also shown, as 370 path "I". The data clearly show that path "I" has no practical 371 value. 373 People eligible via path 2 374 Total: 253 375 +----------------------+ 376 | | 377 | 46 | 378 | +-----------+----------------+ 379 | | | | People eligible 380 | | 176 | 1266 | via path 3 381 | | | | Total: 382 | +------+-----------+-------+ | 1493 383 | | | | | | 384 | | 2 | 29 | | | 385 | | | | | | 386 | | | | | | 387 +---+------+-----------+ | | 388 | | | | 389 | | 22 | | 390 | | | | 391 | +-------------------+--------+ 392 | | 393 | 2 | 394 | | 395 +--------------------------+ 396 People eligible via path "I": 55 398 Figure 3: New paths, before disqualification 400 Qualified via path 2 401 Total: 234 402 +----------------------+ 403 | | 404 | 45 | 405 | +-----------+----------------+ 406 | | | | Qualified 407 | | 172 | 1264 | via path 3 408 | | | | Total: 409 | +------+-----------+-------+ | 1463 410 | | | | | | 411 | | 1 | 16 | | | 412 | | | | | | 413 | | | | | | 414 +---+------+-----------+ | | 415 | | | | 416 | | 11 | | 417 | | | | 418 | +-------------------+--------+ 419 | | 420 | 0 | 421 | | 422 +--------------------------+ 423 Qualified via path "I": 28 425 Figure 4: New paths, after disqualification 427 Appendix B. Change Log 429 This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. 431 B.1. Draft-09 to -10 433 * IESG comments 435 B.2. Draft-08 to -09 437 * IETF Last Call comments 439 B.3. Draft-07 to -08 441 * AD review comments 443 B.4. Draft-06 to -07 445 * Clarifications following reviews by Lars Eggert, Victor Kuarsingh 446 and Barry Leiba 448 * Added ASCII art versions of Venn diagrams 450 B.5. Draft-05 to -06 452 * Allowed for IETF 110 decision 454 * Resolved open issue 456 * Removed "future work" section 458 * Editorial improvements 460 B.6. Draft-04 to -05 462 * Adjusted criteria according to comments received 464 * Removed previous path 3 466 * Renumbered paths 468 * Updated diagrams 470 * Editorial improvements 472 B.7. Draft-03 to -04 474 * Adjusted criteria according to comments received 476 * Shortened period to one year (initially) 478 * Renumbered paths 480 * Updated diagrams 482 * Editorial improvements 484 B.8. Draft-02 to -03 486 * Adjusted criteria according to comments received 488 * Added data 490 B.9. Draft-01 to -02 492 * Made this an RFC 3933 process experiment 493 * Eliminated path based on directorate reviews, used to be: "Has 494 submitted at least 6 reviews as a member of an official IETF 495 review team within the last 3 years." 497 * Other comments from IETF107 virtual gendispatch meeting handled 499 B.10. Draft-00 to -01 501 * Added author 503 Authors' Addresses 505 Brian E. Carpenter 506 The University of Auckland 507 School of Computer Science 508 PB 92019 509 Auckland 1142 510 New Zealand 512 Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com 514 Stephen Farrell 515 Trinity College Dublin 516 College Green 517 Dublin 518 Ireland 520 Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie