Subject: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:43:34 -0400

The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the issue of
how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating Committee) eligibility.
This is especially important because a new NomCom will be formed
between now and IETF 108, giving us all a fairly short time to figure
out what to do.

For convenient reference, the current rules for an IETF participant to
be eligible to be a voting member of a NomCom (Section 4.14 of RFC
8713) require attendance in person at three of the last five meetings.
Normally, for the upcoming NomCom, that would mean three of the
following five meetings: 107 (Vancouver), 106 (Singapore), 105
(Montréal), 104 (Prague), 103 (Bangkok). A new participant who had
been to 105 and 106 would become eligible by attending 107.  An
occasional participant who had been to 103 and 105 would also become
eligible by attending 107. On the other side, someone who had attended
102, 104, and 105 would lose eligibility by NOT attending 107.

The IESG would like the community’s input: How do *you* think 107
should be treated in regards to NomCom eligibility?  While we have
time to come up with a longer-term answer for this as a general
matter, we need to make a one-time decision about how to handle 107
now, before this year’s NomCom is formed.

One choice is to entirely ignore 107 for the purposes of NomCom
eligibility.  The last five meetings would then be 106, 105, 104, 103,
and 102, and one would have had to attend three of those to be
eligible this year.

Another choice is to consider 107 to be a meeting that everyone has
attended, for the purpose of NomCom eligibility.  There, the last five
would still be 107 to 103, but 107 would be an automatic “yes” for
anyone who volunteers for the NomCom.

Perhaps there are other workable options.  Please let us know what you
think by responding to this message thread.  And to be absolutely
clear: whatever we, as a community, decide now, with fairly short lead
time, is for the 2020-2021 NomCom cycle only.  Any longer-term
decisions might be different and will need to be done through a more
formal, consensus-based process, which we also hope to initiate in the
near future.

Thanks in advance for the discussion we’re sure to have on this.

Barry, for the IESG

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:50:41 +0200

Hi,

> 8713) require attendance in person at three of the last five meetings.
...
> should be treated in regards to NomCom eligibility?
...
> eligibility.

since we canceled 107, ignoring it (as you outline above) seems the obvious approach? I might be missing something, but I don't understand how that is not the obvious answer.

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Daniele Ceccarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:51:21 +0000

Hi Barry, IESG,

"require attendance in person at three of the last five meetings" implies, to me, meetings with in person attendance, hence IMO considering the last 5 meetings from 102 to 106 would make more sense.

BR

Daniele  

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: den 13 mars 2020 14:44
To: IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>
Subject: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the issue of how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating Committee) eligibility.
This is especially important because a new NomCom will be formed between now and IETF 108, giving us all a fairly short time to figure out what to do.

For convenient reference, the current rules for an IETF participant to be eligible to be a voting member of a NomCom (Section 4.14 of RFC
8713) require attendance in person at three of the last five meetings.
Normally, for the upcoming NomCom, that would mean three of the following five meetings: 107 (Vancouver), 106 (Singapore), 105 (Montréal), 104 (Prague), 103 (Bangkok). A new participant who had been to 105 and 106 would become eligible by attending 107.  An occasional participant who had been to 103 and 105 would also become eligible by attending 107. On the other side, someone who had attended 102, 104, and 105 would lose eligibility by NOT attending 107.

The IESG would like the community’s input: How do *you* think 107 should be treated in regards to NomCom eligibility?  While we have time to come up with a longer-term answer for this as a general matter, we need to make a one-time decision about how to handle 107 now, before this year’s NomCom is formed.

One choice is to entirely ignore 107 for the purposes of NomCom eligibility.  The last five meetings would then be 106, 105, 104, 103, and 102, and one would have had to attend three of those to be eligible this year.

Another choice is to consider 107 to be a meeting that everyone has attended, for the purpose of NomCom eligibility.  There, the last five would still be 107 to 103, but 107 would be an automatic “yes” for anyone who volunteers for the NomCom.

Perhaps there are other workable options.  Please let us know what you think by responding to this message thread.  And to be absolutely
clear: whatever we, as a community, decide now, with fairly short lead time, is for the 2020-2021 NomCom cycle only.  Any longer-term decisions might be different and will need to be done through a more formal, consensus-based process, which we also hope to initiate in the near future.

Barry, for the IESG

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:52:18 -0500

+1

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 8:51 AM Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ....
> ....
> since we canceled 107, ignoring it (as you outline above) seems the
> obvious approach? I might be missing something, but I don't understand how
> that is not the obvious answer.
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:54:45 -0400

Dear IESG:

My preference would to count everyone as having attended IETF 107.  The me, this is the most fair approach to a person that is just getting involved in the IETF.

Russ

> On Mar 13, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:56:16 +0100

On 2020-03-13, at 14:50, Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I don't understand how that is not the obvious answer.

But IETF107 is not completely canceled.

Instead of counting everyone as registered, we could require registration for IETF107 like for the previous ones, and just ignore whether that was physical (which is not possible) or online.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:56:25 -0400

Dear IESG:

Russ

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:57:09 -0400 (EDT)

> and 102, and one would have had to attend three of those to be

This makes sense to me.

> attended

This makes no sense to me.

Paul

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:57:55 +0200

> But IETF107 is not completely canceled.

As far as "attendance in person" is concerned, it has been.

Lars

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:02:10 -0400

I'd be ok with either not counting IETF 107, or counting anyone who 
attends IETF 107 remotely as if they had attended in person. Counting 
everyone as attending IETF 107 doesn't make much sense to me.

It seems to make more sense to not count IETF 107 and just look at the 
attendance at meetings up to 106, because the IETF 107 agenda is so 
abbreviated.

Keith

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:05:24 -0700

> This makes no sense to me.

I concur with Paul. Ignoring 107 seems to do the best job at fulfilling the
spirit of the rule.

-Ekr

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:20:58 +0000

Hiya,

> One choice is to entirely ignore 107 for the purposes of NomCom

That'd be fine, probably as good or better than any
other answer.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I also think addressing the general point of nomcom
eligibility for IETF participants who don't come to f2f
meetings is needed and work needs to start on that now.
(Hope that doesn't hijack the thread;-)

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:21:29 -0400

--On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> eligibility.  The last five meetings would then be 106, 105,
> 104, 103, and 102, and one would have had to attend three of
> those to be eligible this year.
> 
> Another choice is to consider 107 to be a meeting that
> everyone has attended, for the purpose of NomCom eligibility.
> There, the last five would still be 107 to 103, but 107 would
> be an automatic "yes" for anyone who volunteers for the
> NomCom.

Barry, I suggest adding one other possibility to the list, one I
thought I mentioned in passing to the IESG in another context.
It might be a middle ground between your suggestions.  Since,
formally, IETF 107 is going ahead as virtual, why not count
virtual attendance as "attendance".  For example, we might say
that someone has attendee if they (i) register as a remote
participant and (ii) attend at least one session (and/or at
least the plenary) by logging in on WebEx for that session.  

That would have the advantage of your second option to require
at least some minimal level of involvement.   Of course, someone
could log in on WebEx and then sleep through the session, but
people can come to in-person sessions, sign the blue sheet, and
then sleep through the session too.

The difficulty with simply ignoring IETF 107 is that, while it
was fairly arbitrary, that "five meeting" rule was intended to
restrict the Nomcom to recent participants, not just those who
have participated.  Whether that was the right way to accomplish
that goal or the right formula is part of the longer-term
question, but it seems to me that pushing the formula to what
would effectively a "three of the last six normal meeting
cycles" is not a change we should make lightly.

   best,
     john

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:28:16 +0100

> That'd be fine, probably as good or better than any

I agree too.

I think it would be safe to ask a candidate this:

"Have you attended 3 meetings recently? including online and de visu".

> (Hope that doesn't hijack the thread;-)

I think it would be good if the remote participants were counted as well.

There is a lot of experience that remote participants can bring, 
including the experience about how to organize remote meetings.

Alex

L

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:32:39 +0100

On 2020-03-13, at 15:21, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Since,
> virtual attendance as "attendance”.

(That was pretty much what I was trying to say.)
I.e., for each IETF, the “most engaged” version of attending substitutes for physical attendance, if the latter is not available.

Advantage: We don’t work on outdated data
Disadvantage: It’s easier to fake
(But that’s just one out of 3.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:43:51 -0400

Thanks, John: that's a valid third choice, and I think it could be workable.

> cycles" is not a change we should make lightly.

Speaking for myself only and not for the IESG as a whole: as the IESG
noted in the message, this is a one-time thing to deal with the
imminent formation of this year's NomCom.  I would absolutely agree
with you about making a lasting change.  I have no heartburn at all
about making a decision now for this cycle, which decision might be a
slight variation on the BCP rules.

Barry

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:45:56 -0400

--On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the
> issue of how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating
> Committee) eligibility. This is especially important because a
> new NomCom will be formed between now and IETF 108, giving us
> all a fairly short time to figure out what to do.

Barry,

Forking the thread in the hope of not cluttering up your NomCom
eligibility discussion, but...

We seem to be making strong assumptions that we will be able to
hold IETF 108 as planned, with f2f meetings in Madrid in late
July.  I suggest that the IESG (and the rest of us) think about
that and so sooner rather than later.  Our implicit assumption
is that things will settle down enough that IETF 108 can be held
normally and that we do not need to worry about a "new normal".
The infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists among my
colleagues is this novel coronavirus really is new in several
ways and, consequently, that we really cannot predict how
quickly the period of maximal spread and risks will wind down by
July.  That may be likely, but it is by no means certain.  

So, it seems to me that we should be sorting out possible issues
and making contingency plans about the conditions under which
IETF 108 would need to be virtual too, including both things
tied to the first or second meeting of the year and to how we do
things.   The circumstances that came upon us in the last six
weeks gave us little choice other than making quick decisions.
I personally think that, on balance, the IESG made reasonable
decisions and handled things about as well as they could be
handled, including the short-notice cancellation/ virtual
conversion and reformed agenda.  But we'd best not have that
"whoops, big surprise" situation followed by a scramble again,
if only because of the damage that the loss of the cross-area
review that has occurred at f2f meetings since the IETF started
could do to the quality of our work.  

So, let us -- soon, even if not in the next two weeks -- ask
ourselves such questions as to how the Nomcom will function if
it cannot meet f2f at IETF 108 (or 109), whether the possible
need for the Nomcom to do much more of its work remotely might
affect whatever advice is given to the ISOC President/CEO about
candidates for Nomcom Chair, and so on.   And then let's repeat
that with a review of all of the other issues tied to the
"second meeting" and how IETF 108 could be made maximally
effective if we were forced to hold it virtually... including,
of course, how that decision would be made and by whom.  

We could still view that as short-term with longer-term analysis
and solutions to follow.  But July isn't that far away and, if
things don't get better, we should not have to deal with any
plausibly-foreseeable situations by being surprised and
improvising.

best,
   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:19:45 -0400

--On Friday, March 13, 2020 10:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> have participated.  Whether that was the right way to
>> accomplish that goal or the right formula is part of the
>> longer-term question, but it seems to me that pushing the
>> formula to what would effectively a "three of the last six
>> normal meeting cycles" is not a change we should make lightly.
 
> Speaking for myself only and not for the IESG as a whole: as
> the IESG noted in the message, this is a one-time thing to
> deal with the imminent formation of this year's NomCom.  I
> would absolutely agree with you about making a lasting change.
> I have no heartburn at all about making a decision now for
> this cycle, which decision might be a slight variation on the
> BCP rules.

I would agree except I think that carrying "one-time thing" too
far gets us into a situation in which we have to keep evaluating
exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, and so on.
Trivial example: If we say "for purposes of forming the
2020-2021 Nomcom, IETF 107 is treating as not existing and we
count 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106 as the "last five meetings"
then, for the 2021-2022 Nomcom, the list is presumably 104, 105,
106, 108, 109.  But 104 would then be getting fairly far away,
so we might have to start thinking up another ad-hoc rule.  If
we can't manage to hold 108 as planned (see other note) it, and
the ad-hocery, gets even worse.   Saying, as we have essentially
said for other purposes, the IETF 107 is a real meeting that we
just happened to hold virtually (and as the meeting page, etc.,
now say) is, IMO, just much more stable.  And, in the unlikely
event that we have to make 108 (or 109 -- there is a
epistemologically-plausible scenario for that too) virtual, we
have a model that would probably need tweaking but not a fragile
and ad hoc solution.

best,
   john

p.s. It may be worth remembering that we have other things tied
to Nomcom eligibility in addition to the Nomcom itself.  Unless
we want to enumerate those other things and figure out which
rules apply to which ones, it would be good to make a decision
about the Nomcom that would reasonably extend to those other
situations without having to do a case-by-case analysis.  Some
formula that treats IETF 107 as a "real" meeting and then
tinkering with how attendance is countered (essentially what I'm
proposing, with other formulas probably being equally
reasonable) would help keep us out of that case-by-case problem.
People interested in other formulas might find reviewing pars of
the discussion of recall eligibility a few months ago (including
but not limited to that of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev)
interesting.

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:33:21 -0700

Barry,

> On Mar 13, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

My preference is to count remote attendance at the plenary as having attended the meeting for NomCom eligibility.   That’s where, I assume, the leadership transition is going to be happening as well as other IETF organizational issues will be presented.   I think this is better than the other alternatives.

Bob

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:34:13 -0400

> "Have you attended 3 meetings recently? including online and

For better or worse, the current procedures require that the
Secretariat check volunteers for the Nomcom against attendance
lists.  Barry's two suggestions and mine effectively adjust the
lists they use.   Asking the candidates if they consider
themselves eligible instead would be a much more radical change/
adjustment.

    john

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:37:19 +0200

On 2020-3-13, at 17:33, Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:
> My preference is to count remote attendance at the plenary as having attended the meeting for NomCom eligibility.

Sorry, not gonna stay up all night just to ++ my NomCom availability.

Lars

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:47:13 -0700

Describing some of these requirements to potential NomCom members is 
going to cause confusion. Thus, it is probably better to not have to 
describe them at all. Simply skip IETF 107 in the eligibility 
calculation.

--Paul Hoffmam

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:10:50 +0000

I am in favor of whichever result leads to a larger candidate pool.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:12:53 -0400

> now, before this year’s NomCom is formed.

I think that IETF107 should be counted as a remote meeting, therefore not
valid in the current rules for eligibility.

This is exactly how the IETF has treated remote attendees for the past twenty
years.  If there is interest in fixing that, I have a number of proposals.

    > and 102, and one would have had to attend three of those to be

Nope.

    > anyone who volunteers for the NomCom.

Nope.

I doubt missing one meeting will have a significant impact on the eligibility
of very many.

{now, I might read the long thread I see attached}

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:22:55 +0100

+1

An exhaustive mathematical analysis performed by staring at the two option
paragraps for 5 seconds each has made me come up with the following preference.

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:59:18 +0100 (CET)

> Il 13/03/2020 16:33 Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 

I don't see how you can replace "attending at least some meetings over a week in person" with a one-off remote attendance, which you might have to fail for a number of good reasons. Also, that would disadvantage people for which the plenary will be at ungodly hours (i.e. everyone in Europe, Africa, Middle East, India and Central Asia).

If we want to keep 107 in the span, the best and most literal substitution IMHO would be to count as in-person attendee anyone who had at any time validly registered for in-person attendance, even if they had cancelled before the general cancellation. However, I guess there are others (no idea how many) who would have registered at the last minute, should all this mess not have happened.

Alternatively, let's just consider 102-106, though that is a bit unfair to newcomers.

-- 
 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[email-masked] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:25:02 -0400

>> and 102, and one would have had to attend three of those to be

Or to put it another way:

If you were eligible for the Nomcom or for any of the other 3 of 5 
meetings required positions at the conclusion of the 106th IETF meeting 
you will remain eligible until the corona virus threat has abated (as 
determined by the consensus of the IESG, IAB and LLC based on available 
public health guidance?).

I'd also suggest adding:

If the IETF succeeds in holding  in-person plenary meetings while there 
are still substantial numbers of company or country restrictions related 
to the virus, those meetings will count for the purposes of meetings 
attended, but will not cause any of the current "last 5" - 102-106 - to 
drop off the list.   E.g. if you had 2 of 5 meetings at the conclusion 
of IETF 106, and you attend IETF 108, you would be eligible, but any 
person eligible after 106 would remain eligible even if they didn't 
attend.   [When it looked like the IETF was going ahead, but without 
substantial numbers of participants due to the patchwork of 
restrictions, I had the above queued up as a suggestion - there also 
needs to be a return to steady state clause of some sort].

Mike

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:41:05 -0400

--On Friday, March 13, 2020 17:59 +0100 Vittorio Bertola
<vittorio.bertola=[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> If we want to keep 107 in the span, the best and most literal
> substitution IMHO would be to count as in-person attendee
> anyone who had at any time validly registered for in-person
> attendance, even if they had cancelled before the general
> cancellation. However, I guess there are others (no idea how
> many) who would have registered at the last minute, should all
> this mess not have happened.

Still trying to find a middle ground here...

More work for the Secretariat and probably more fragile should
future meetings be moved to virtual, but, for this one, how
about either;

(1) Registered as above  

 -or-

(2) Attended plenary remotely.

That would avoid both the objection of having to participate at
a ridiculous time in one's time zone (for reasons that were
discussed on the list weeks ago, I'm not too sympathetic about
that, especially if it is just one session, but so it goes) and
the unfortunate properties of disenfranchising would-be late
registrants and effectively letting people buy Nomcom
eligibility without doing anything substantive.

While I don't like unnecessary complexity, I don't believe that
any of these formulas are too complex to be workable.  People
decide whether they think they are eligible and submit their
names (just like every other year).  The Secretariat reviews the
volunteer list and determines who is eligible (just like every
other year).  If people don't believe the Secretariat got that
right, they protest and review the issue with the Secretariat
and others (just like every other year).  So whatever else an
all-virtual meeting implies and requires changing, that doesn't
seem to be on the list.   I think the appropriate saying for
that situation is "it ain't broke, don't fix it".

   john

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:59:27 -0700

> That'd be fine, probably as good or better than any other answer.

and when 108, 109, ... are remote?

as i just said privately to someone

i suspect, similar to the A/V technology, we will need to develop
attendance taking technology.

randy

---

From: "tom petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 18:03:30 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: John C Klensin [email-masked]
Sent: 13/03/2020 14:45:56

Barry,

<tp> I fear that that assumption will turn out to be optimistic.  UK government advice is that the peak will come in 10 to 14 weeks and that the UK is four weeks behind Italy.  Assuming Spain is somewhere between the two then IETF108 must be at risk and it would be sound engineering to explore the consequences of IETF108 not happening in person.  One post up-thread suggested that IETF109 would not happen either. Again up-thread a post suggested that this virus spreads more in the dry so the spread in Spain may be faster or greater than in the wetter UK. Tom Petch
</tp>

---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
https://www.oeclassic.com/

best,
   john

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:41:02 +0100

Le 13/03/2020 à 19:03, tom petch a écrit :
> ----- Original Message ----- From: John C Klensin [email-masked] 
> Sent: 13/03/2020 14:45:56 --On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400 
>> issue of how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating Committee) 
>> eligibility. This is especially important because a new NomCom
>> will be formed between now and IETF 108, giving us all a fairly
>> short time to figure out what to do.
> 
> Barry,
> 
> We seem to be making strong assumptions that we will be able to hold 
> IETF 108 as planned, with f2f meetings in Madrid in late July.  I 
> suggest that the IESG (and the rest of us) think about that and so 
> sooner rather than later.  Our implicit assumption is that things 
> will settle down enough that IETF 108 can be held normally and that 
> we do not need to worry about a "new normal".

> <tp> I fear that that assumption will turn out to be optimistic.  UK
> government advice is that the peak will come in 10 to 14 weeks and
> that the UK is four weeks behind Italy.  Assuming Spain is somewhere
> between the two then IETF108 must be at risk and it would be sound
> engineering to explore the consequences of IETF108 not happening in
> person.  One post up-thread suggested that IETF109 would not happen
> either. Again up-thread a post suggested that this virus spreads more
> in the dry so the spread in Spain may be faster or greater than in
> the wetter UK. Tom Petch </tp>

IETF108 and 109 will surf on waves.

The China data is encouragingly surfing down a 3-month wave.  They 
consistenly halved the new cases daily in recent days, to a point that 
one would expect 2 new cases only, right after tomorrow.  That's an 
encouraging situation if so it is.

An accordeon, or wave back and forth, effect might happen, or might not, 
from newly strained countries back into China, who seems to be closing 
borders to incomers, recently.  I guess if they resist then there wont 
be a 2nd wave.  Even if there is a 2nd wave, it might be lower, or not.

The 'mutation' word is not understood.

Clinical trial protocols of medication started yesterday or even 
earlier.  Despite that, vaccination is said within several months, not 
weeks.

It's an event of cold, but heat countries in Africa have it too, even 
though a little less.  It's an event of winter, because world maps of 
distribution, show currently much distribution in Northern hemisphere, 
and little in the Southern hemisphere.  When the Earth will incline the 
other way, will the virus with a crown disappear or move the other way too.

The cancellation of conferences and similar meetings that I see extend 
to end of May and end of June.  Some events simply cancel, others 
forecast a new date to replace the initial date.  Some concerts are 
moved to September.

The cancellations of airlines do have end dates, but I forgot them.

Communication still lacks at most levels.  Some call it epidemy others 
pandemy, some call it a virus or a disease, acronyms abound and used 
interchangeably; situation scales are declared and silently retired 
(e.g. in France Stade 1, Stade 2, Stade 3 never reached but we're there; 
e.g. in France yesterday the speech called it both an epidemy and a 
pandemy)  Communication: people learn from the others the good ideas, 
Italy now has singers at windows, like China a few weeks ago.

Alex

> 
> --- New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it 
> here: https://www.oeclassic.com/
> 
> colleagues is this novel coronavirus really is new in several ways 
> and, consequently, that we really cannot predict how quickly the 
> period of maximal spread and risks will wind down by July.  That may 
> be likely, but it is by no means certain.
> 
> So, it seems to me that we should be sorting out possible issues and 
> making contingency plans about the conditions under which IETF 108 
> would need to be virtual too, including both things tied to the
> first or second meeting of the year and to how we do things.   The 
> circumstances that came upon us in the last six weeks gave us little 
> choice other than making quick decisions. I personally think that,
> on balance, the IESG made reasonable decisions and handled things
> about as well as they could be handled, including the short-notice 
> cancellation/ virtual conversion and reformed agenda.  But we'd best 
> not have that "whoops, big surprise" situation followed by a
> scramble again, if only because of the damage that the loss of the
> cross-area review that has occurred at f2f meetings since the IETF
> started could do to the quality of our work.
> 
> ourselves such questions as to how the Nomcom will function if it 
> cannot meet f2f at IETF 108 (or 109), whether the possible need for 
> the Nomcom to do much more of its work remotely might affect
> whatever advice is given to the ISOC President/CEO about candidates
> for Nomcom Chair, and so on.   And then let's repeat that with a
> review of all of the other issues tied to the "second meeting" and
> how IETF 108 could be made maximally effective if we were forced to
> hold it virtually... including, of course, how that decision would be
> made and by whom.
> 
> We could still view that as short-term with longer-term analysis and 
> solutions to follow.  But July isn't that far away and, if things 
> don't get better, we should not have to deal with any 
> plausibly-foreseeable situations by being surprised and improvising.
> 
> best, john
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 08:27:27 +1300

I agree that having a contingency plan for this would be wise and
if we make it reasonably future-proof it would not be wasted effort
if IETF108 takes place normally. Could we possibly discuss it over
on eligibility-discuss, where presumably the people interested are
already to be found?

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 14-Mar-20 03:45, John C Klensin wrote:
> .

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:42:12 +0000

Electronic attendance taking is both easier and more reliable than blue-sheets.

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:59 PM
To: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Cc: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>; IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

randy

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:10:03 -0400

> discussed on the list weeks ago, I'm not too sympathetic about

Yet, we have expected exactly this of remote attendees for 20 years?

My opinion is that everyone gets a "did not attend" for IETF107.
My compromise is that you attend the plenary.

I think that in the end, it will not affect more than three or four people's
eligibility, but as you have said John, we do have to figure this out long
term.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:31:59 -0400

We definitely need to have contingency planning. I am a security guy. We
contingency plan.

Even if things do return to normal tomorrow (they won't) we are now in a
changed world because we have more information. Eight weeks ago almost
nobody believed that a 1918 scale pandemic was likely. Today we are in the
middle of one.

Since the 1970s we have been busy integrating the global supply chain.
Those efforts have brought most of the world peace and prosperity. The
prosperity has been unevenly shared and wars have still occurred. But the
scope for war between the European powers has been limited by the fact than
none of them is capable of manufacturing a full fighter jet, bomber, tank
on their own. The scope for war between the US and China has been limited
by the fact that the US economy depends on cheap Chinese goods and the
Chinese economy depends on access to the US market.

The creation of these inter-connections is not just a fortuitous outcome of
Laissez-faire economics, they have been deliberately forged through
government policy.

And now all of a sudden the supply chains have snapped and we are suddenly
cut adrift. And we have to work out how to make the million or so
ventilators the US will be needing in a few weeks with no access to Chinese
parts with an administration that shows no intention of announcing the
mobilization needed to do so.

We don't yet know what the long term effects of this crisis are going to be
but they are likely to be much more profound and long lasting than 9/11. We
have suddenly seen the fragility of the modern economy and that is not
something many of us can unsee.

Don't assume that everyone who is currently focused on IETF work is going
to be available.

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 20:43:17 +0000

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 05:22:55PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> An exhaustive mathematical analysis performed by staring at the two
> option paragraps for 5 seconds each has made me come up with the
> following preference.

As John, Randy, and others have noted in this thread - I think we in
this discussion context simply assume IETF 108 will also be all remote.
And in that potential future, if from a NOMCOM eligibility perspective
both IETF 107 and 108 are 'ignored', where does that leave us?

I think that if IETF 107 is to take place in some remote shape or
virtual form, it should be possible to 'attend', and list of these
attendees should somehow contribute towards eligibility for the NOMCOM.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:55:13 -0700

>> attendance taking technology.

i'll be interested in the sec cons for it

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:25:44 -0400

I agree with Job, Even if we could hold IETF 108 as planned, I would expect
a large number of remote attendees just because people might still be wary
of travel. The time has come to determine a criteria for including remote
attendees for NOMCOM eligibility. The existing criteria is in-person
attendance for at least one day. My personal preference for the new
criteria would be in-person or remote participation in one or more working
group/BOF sessions and/or the plenary, as determined by electronic blue
sheets or by logging in to the conferencing system. That's just a
suggestion, I'm certainly open to other suggestions for the new criteria.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:32:39 -0400

On 3/13/20 7:25 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:

> The time has come to determine a criteria for including remote 
> attendees for NOMCOM eligibility. 

Maybe it could be based on the number of WG or independent stream draft 
documents an attendee thoroughly reviews?

(if we could define criteria for review thoroughness...)

Seems like the general idea should be that the people who invest in the 
work of the organization should be the ones on the NOMCOM.

Keith

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:54:09 -0400

Just a reminder: for the purpose of THIS discussion, we just need to figure
out what to do for THIS NomCom selection, which will happen before IETF
108.  Of course, that NomCom might have to sort out how to do its work
completely remotely, but that’s its job, not ours.

For the longer term, we need to decide if and how to give NomCom
eligibility for remote participation, but let’s please not try to do that
in THIS discussion.  There will be a GenDispatch session on 23 March, and I
strongly encourage people to get time on the agenda and make a proposal
there for work on that topic.

Barry

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 7:26 PM Andrew G. Malis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I agree with Job, Even if we could hold IETF 108 as planned, I would
> expect a large number of remote attendees just because people might still
> be wary of travel. The time has come to determine a criteria for including
> remote attendees for NOMCOM eligibility. The existing criteria is in-person

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 22:11:41 -0400

Berry / All,

For this discussion (task at hand), it would be my opinion that we would go
with the approach of removing IETF107 from the criteria.  We would either
use the previous 5 IETFs (as noted by some) with a 3 of 5 attendance or we
could do 2 of 4.

Both of those options keep as close to the original intent of the RFC.   I
would have required the potential NOMCOM voting members to have been
present for recent meetings which is the current practice.

I am not opposed to trying to sort out how to include remote attendees in
the future, but we should not try and solve that right now.

In line with what Berry noted, we need to solve for this year’s selection
and that work will need to start up in the near future.

Regards,

Victor K

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 19:55 Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Just a reminder: for the purpose of THIS discussion, we just need to
> figure out what to do for THIS NomCom selection, which will happen before
> IETF 108.  Of course, that NomCom might have to sort out how to do its work

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:05:34 -0700

Hi Jason,
At 04:54 PM 13-03-2020, Barry Leiba wrote:
>figure out what to do for THIS NomCom selection, which will happen 
>before IETF 108.  Of course, that NomCom might have to sort out how 
>to do its work completely remotely, but that's its job, not ours.

Will there be an open IETF LLC position?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 23:21:06 -0500

On 13 Mar 2020, at 18:54, Barry Leiba wrote:

> eligibility for remote participation, but let’s please not try to do 
> that in THIS discussion.  There will be a GenDispatch session on 23 
> March, and I strongly encourage people to get time on the agenda and 
> make a proposal there for work on that topic.

As one of the GenDispatch chairs: This topic was discussed in the 
GenDispatch session at IETF 106 at which time the rough consensus of the 
room was that it could use some of its own virtual BoF time. Even though 
the GenDispatch agenda is pretty light at the moment, I would prefer not 
to simply re-hash the IETF 106 discussion without some new substantive 
material to be dispatching.

The suggestion to start discussing this on [email-masked] 
seems like a good one.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 07:01:35 +0000

Russ,

That ignores one of the reasons for requiring attendance which is to better know the IETF and hence to have the context for decisions.

I would prefer that the requirement to have actually attended three meetings is retained.

Stewart

Sent from my iPad

> On 13 Mar 2020, at 13:55, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dear IESG:
>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 07:07:25 +0000

+1

I do not see us returning to normality until 110.

Stewart

Sent from my iPad

> On 13 Mar 2020, at 18:00, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:23:56 -0400

1) For purposes of seating the incoming IAB and IESG, declare that IETF 107
happened on schedule

2) For purposes of NOMCON, declare that it has not.

Thus eligibility carried over from the previous five meetings. This is
probably going to be within 90% of the pool that would have been eligible
had 107 taken place so its a good start.

3) Count virtual registration for 107 as eligibility.

This might result in some people who would not have been eligible being
eligible but the criteria are not a divine mandate in the first place and
it remains an utterly ridiculous method of selecting officers.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:35:29 -0400

Stewart,

I agree strongly.  However, given your comment and those of
Randy and others that we cannot assume a return to "normal"
until IETF 110 (if then), I think we'd better be paying careful
attention to the definition of "attended".  And, while what we
do about that long-term is almost certainly a matter for
eligibility-discuss, we should think through whatever decisions
are made about this specific Nomcom issue to be confident they
don't over-constrain or significantly complicate future
decisions.

best,
   john

--On Saturday, March 14, 2020 07:01 +0000 Stewart Bryant
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> That ignores one of the reasons for requiring attendance which
> is to better know the IETF and hence to have the context for
> decisions.
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 16:07:38 -0400

Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > That ignores one of the reasons for requiring attendance which is to
    > better know the IETF and hence to have the context for decisions.

    > I would prefer that the requirement to have actually attended three

My proposal from years ago is that the current rules remain as criteria for
*becoming* eligible.

The difference is that the criteria for *remaining* eligible is lowered.

If we can agree to this structure, then we can proceed forward to determine
(separately) what changes we might make to that criteria.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 18:20:42 -0700

Hi Alex,
At 11:41 AM 13-03-2020, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>It's an event of cold, but heat countries in Africa have it too, 
>even though a little less.  It's an event of winter, because world 
>maps of distribution, show currently much distribution in Northern 
>hemisphere, and little in the Southern hemisphere.  When the Earth 
>will incline the other way, will the virus with a crown disappear or 
>move the other way too.

The magnitude of R0 in some parts of the Southern Hemisphere might be 
related to travel and several other factors.

The "loss" from attendance is currently at least $706,875.  The 
amount will likely double by the end of July.  That is another aspect 
of potential issues which the IETF might face.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 19:31:34 -0600

> and 102, and one would have had to attend three of those to be

+1 on ignore it. 

It looks to me that 107 is largely being canceled and people will not get the relationships, insights, and experience that we want for the nomcom. Treating everyone as being there is just not OK because it is unlikely they have the information we would hope someone on the nomcom would have. This applies equally to newcomers and people that have been to many IETF meetings. 

If we had an effective remote meeting, with all the types of conversations and meetings that happen at a normal IETF, I might feel differently.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 09:52:34 +0000

Hi,

Entirely ignore IETF107 and count the last five meetings before.

regards

Nic

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ietf <[email-masked]> Im Auftrag von Barry Leiba
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. März 2020 14:44
An: IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>
Betreff: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Barry, for the IESG

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:09:16 +1300

Subramanian

> On 14/03/2020, at 5:05 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jason,
>> Just a reminder: for the purpose of THIS discussion, we just need to figure out what to do for THIS NomCom selection, which will happen before IETF 108.  Of course, that NomCom might have to sort out how to do its work completely remotely, but that's its job, not ours.
> 

I have updated the LLC Board page [1] to include the term end year of each member, which body appointed them and a link to the appointment announcement.

Jay

[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/llc-board/ 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]
+64 21 678840

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:23:15 -0700

> anyone who volunteers for the NomCom.
I support counting 107 registered remote attendees toward NomCom
eligibility, with no session attendance requirement (such as the
Plenary). The requirement for session attendance is only meaningful if
we expect people--who have attended two of the other meetings in the
window--to game the eligibility system by registering with no intent to
actually participate. I don't think that's a significant problem.

-Jim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:40:10 +1300

Jim,
> actually participate. I don't think that's a significant problem.

Unfortunately I have to disagree. We know for a fact that some companies
have actively encouraged employees to volunteer for NomCom in the past.
That's been happening over many years with a variety of companies. I fear
this would happen even more with an even lower barrier.

Simply leaving 107 out of the count seems fairest to me.

[For the record, I believe that I would be eligible with or without 107.
So I have no skin in this particular game.]

    Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 16:39:50 -0400

--On Monday, 16 March, 2020 08:40 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I support counting 107 registered remote attendees toward
>> NomCom eligibility, with no session attendance requirement
>> (such as the Plenary). The requirement for session attendance
>> is only meaningful if we expect people--who have attended two
>> of the other meetings in the window--to game the eligibility
>> system by registering with no intent to actually participate.
>> I don't think that's a significant problem.
 
> Unfortunately I have to disagree. We know for a fact that some
> companies have actively encouraged employees to volunteer for
> NomCom in the past. That's been happening over many years with
> a variety of companies. I fear this would happen even more
> with an even lower barrier.
> 

Brian,

I have the same concern, but reach an opposite conclusion.  If
those companies are cost-sensitive, then canceling 107 and not
counting it is a gift to them unless they have been careless of
stupid enough to try to game the minimum number of meetings
people had to attend and counted on 107 to count for this
upcoming Nomcom.  If they are less cost-sensitive (or not
cost-sensitive at all) then the relevant people have probably
attended most of the recent meetings and no decision will have
any impact.

While I'd prefer to see some minimum requirement for virtual
participation in 107 so it is not just a requirement to register
without any requirement for contact with the IETF during that
period, I'm not sure how much difference that would make to
anyone but those in the relatively small group of people who
attend slightly more than one meeting a year, i.e., who are at
the very edge of 3/5.  Ignoring 107 effectively turns that into
a 3/6 requirement; counting it for everyone effectively makes it
2/6 (I just realized that probably would make me eligible).
Small numbers in either case and perhaps not worth the energy we
are putting into the question, but I think we should be as
concerned about who we accidentally block out as about those who
are trying to get in for the wrong reasons. 

However, as I have suggested before and more or less suggested
again on eligibility-discuss earlier today, I think we need to
examine the question of what we do with Nomcom eligibility in
the first quarter of 2021 if either or both of 108 or 109 end up
without f2f meetings or with them and very low and selective
attendance.  "Ignore 107" and "Count everyone as having attended
109 without any further requirements" probably both imply
another fire drill to invent ad hoc solutions in those cases
because we would almost certainly not want to do the same thing
two meetings in a row or even two of three.  Something that
establishes some minimal surrogate for participation in 107
would seem unlikely to require significant retroactive tweaking
a year hence and, with some planning and a bit of luck, could
easily be folded into longer-term plans.

best,
   john

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 20:50:30 +0000

What is wrong with actively encouraging NomCom volunteers?  Do you think they'll all vote the same?  What's not covered by the limit on same employer rules?

A random choice out of a self-selected pool will not give a random set of members.  It will give a random subset from that self-selected pool.

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 22:05:31 +0100

Le 15/03/2020 à 02:20, S Moonesamy a écrit :
>> distribution, show currently much distribution in Northern 

What do you mean by R0?

Indeed, it might be so.  I do not know.  I am just struck by seeing the 
map how it is.  I do not know.

>
> The "loss" from attendance is currently at least $706,875.  The amount 
> will likely double by the end of July.  That is another aspect of 
> potential issues which the IETF might face.

For the amounts of money.

I understand no attendant to IETF Vancouver was not reimbursed; or they 
are all about to get reimbursed.   (I think?)

For the sources of money.  Currently several sources of money are being 
made available to compensate to many things, such as tele-work, or 
'partial no-work' and many others.  There are specific budgets to SMEs 
as well.  At a high level, China claimed injecting 130M dollar 
(milliard, i.e. billion in English); America talked about 50, France 
about 15 or so.  Other countries too. These numbers are non negligible.

Alex

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 17:39:09 -0700

Hi Alex,
At 02:05 PM 15-03-2020, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>What do you mean by R0?
>
>Indeed, it might be so.  I do not know.  I am just struck by seeing 
>the map how it is.  I do not know.

My comments should not be read as medical or health advice.  There is 
some information about R0 at 
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/70863 (Page 15 of the document).

>I understand no attendant to IETF Vancouver was not reimbursed; or 
>they are all about to get reimbursed.   (I think?)

 From what I understand, there was a full refund.  People familiar 
with budgeting might look at the matter from other angles.

>For the sources of money.  Currently several sources of money are 
>being made available to compensate to many things, such as 
>tele-work, or 'partial no-work' and many others.  There are specific 
>budgets to SMEs as well.  At a high level, China claimed injecting 
>130M dollar (milliard, i.e. billion in English); America talked 
>about 50, France about 15 or so.  Other countries too. These numbers 
>are non negligible.

The numbers which you mentioned might be non-negligible.  It is 
difficult to translate that into quick impact on daily life.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 10:51:23 -0500

Replying to Barry's note, but the intended audience is the GEN AD and
GenDispatch chairs ...

> there for work on that topic.

For what it's worth, there's already an "IETF-Nomcom" discussion mailing
list, intended for just such conversations, at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom.

Is there a recommendation whether we use that list, or gendispatch, or
something else? I'm assuming everyone is hoping for more than just a new
thread on the IETF discussion list ...

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:39:27 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

> For what it's worth, there's already an "IETF-Nomcom" discussion mailing list, intended for just such
> conversations, at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom.
> 
> Is there a recommendation whether we use that list, or gendispatch, or something else? I'm assuming
> everyone is hoping for more than just a new thread on the IETF discussion list ...

We have a list dedicated to the purpose that has been seeing traffic:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss

-- Sam

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:40:52 -0400

> On Mar 16, 2020, at 12:39 PM, Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Let’s keep it there since threads there have already begun.

Thanks,
Alissa

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 20:45:10 -0500

Hi, Alissa and Sam,

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:40 PM Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:

> something else? I'm assuming

Thanks. I'd never heard of this one :-)

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:14:00 -0400

If you haven't already weighed in on this, please post your comment
here, in this thread on <[email-masked]>, by 30 April 2020.

Thanks,
Barry, for the IESG

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:54:04 +0000

Err on the side of including people. Discount 107 for everyone.  BUT include it for those who signed bluesheets on more than one day.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:10:23 +1300

> Err on the side of including people. Discount 107 for everyone.  BUT include it for those who signed bluesheets on more than one day.

I think that actually amounts to varying the rule to 3/6, i.e. 102-107 would all be considered.

I certainly consider this worth discussing, although I don't see why you say "bluesheets on more than one day" rather than "more than one bluesheet." With such a reduced agenda, it could easily happen that a person only considered one day of interest. (Especially with many people having to deal with the domestic chaos of a lockdown. I heard dogs and I heard kids during today's sessions.)

However, I'm concerned about the implications of potentially contravening BCP10. It's a process BCP and we build a chain of authority for those by having the ISOC Board take note of them. And BCP10 is unambiguous in stating:
(a) That various things happen related to the First IETF each year.
(b) That eligibility requires 3/5 attendance at the moment of NomCom selection, which normally means that the 5th of the 5 qualifying meetings is the First IETF of the year.

Because of (a), it seems to me that the IESG needs to formally assert that this week *is* the First IETF of 2020, and ask the ISOC Board to take note.

If you then want to make virtual attendance this week qualify, the IESG would also need to assert the ad hoc definition of attendance, and also ask the ISOC Board to take note.

If you wanted to include 102 in the qualifying meetings, the same applies, IMHO.

I'm not sure which approach is best, but I am sure about it needing a formal statement from the IESG which the ISOC Board is informed about.

(And before anyone asks, I do mean the ISOC Board. IETF LLC is not in this particular loop, since it concerns the IETF process, not its administration.)

Regards
    Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 00:54:42 -0400

FWIW, I agree with Brian about the clarity of BCP 10 and this
not being a situation in which we can say "Do the Right Thing",
wave our hands a bit, and move on.

I have one additional concern that I think needs to be part of
this discussion.   Whether one believes that IETF 108 will
occur, on schedule, f2f and with "normal" levels of attendance
in Madrid (and similarly for IETF 109 in Bangkok), I hope we can
agree that the likelihood of either meeting being virtual and/or
low attendance is above zero.   In addition to making it clear
who is eligible to volunteer for the nomcom, we need to figure
out what guidance we should give people as to whether or not
they should volunteer.   During the plenary discussions and on
the mailing list earlier, I think I heard the current nomcom
chair say things than I interpret as a belief that running a
nomcom entirely virtually would be fairly easy.  I think I've
heard others, including some previous nomcom chairs and members,
suggest that it would be difficult and might create some
complicated biases.  So, assume I were an IETF participant who
would be eligible under any of the formulas now being considered
(for the record, I'm not under any of them).  Assume, too, that
I work for a company whose travel policies are subject to
change, that have changed in the last month or three, and whose
policies three or seven months from now are not reliably
predictable.  Whether it is plausible or ethical for me to
volunteer for the nomcom depends, not only on whether I'm
eligible but on whether I have a reasonable expectation that, if
either everyone is virtual or I'm remote from IETF 108 and/or
109 the nomcom chair and other nomcom members will be willing
and able to accommodate that and work efficiently.  

I think the issues that go into that reasonable expectation had
best be resolved on the same schedule as the eligibility issue.
They might even influence Andrew and his appointment of a Nomcom
chair because, like it or not, a Chair who is experienced and
comfortable operating a process similar to the Nomcom with
either a mix of f2f and several remote participants or everyone
remote would considerably increase the chances for a process
that runs smoothly and a volunteer pool that reflects the
collection of effective IETF participants as much as reasonably
possible.

thanks,
    john

--On Thursday, March 26, 2020 16:10 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Err on the side of including people. Discount 107 for
>> everyone.  BUT include it for those who signed bluesheets on
>> more than one day.
> 
> I certainly consider this worth discussing, although I don't
> see why you say "bluesheets on more than one day" rather than
> "more than one bluesheet." With such a reduced agenda, it
> could easily happen that a person only considered one day of
> interest. (Especially with many people having to deal with the
> domestic chaos of a lockdown. I heard dogs and I heard kids
> during today's sessions.)
> 
> However, I'm concerned about the implications of potentially
> contravening BCP10. It's a process BCP and we build a chain of
> authority for those by having the ISOC Board take note of
> them. And BCP10 is unambiguous in stating: (a) That various
> things happen related to the First IETF each year. (b) That
> eligibility requires 3/5 attendance at the moment of NomCom
> selection, which normally means that the 5th of the 5
> qualifying meetings is the First IETF of the year.
> 
> Because of (a), it seems to me that the IESG needs to formally
> assert that this week *is* the First IETF of 2020, and ask the
> ISOC Board to take note.
> 
> If you then want to make virtual attendance this week qualify,
> the IESG would also need to assert the ad hoc definition of
> attendance, and also ask the ISOC Board to take note.
> 
> I'm not sure which approach is best, but I am sure about it
> needing a formal statement from the IESG which the ISOC Board
> is informed about.
> 
> (And before anyone asks, I do mean the ISOC Board. IETF LLC is
> not in this particular loop, since it concerns the IETF
> process, not its administration.)
> 
> Regards
>     Brian
>

---

From: "tom petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:26:07 +0000

Barry

Ignore 107 entirely; treat 102 to 106 as the qualifying meetings.

Going forward, if 108 is cancelled, then we should consider virtual qualification but that is for a future discussion.  107 has had too many uncertainties and changes on the part of all parties to be considered.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Sent: 25/03/2020 23:14:00

---

________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks,
Barry, for the IESG

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 07:41:00 -0400

+1

----------
On March 26, 2020 6:27:16 AM "tom petch" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Going forward, if 108 is cancelled, then we should consider virtual 
> qualification but that is for a future discussion.  107 has had too many 
> uncertainties and changes on the part of all parties to be considered.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 19:45:56 +0800

+1

/Loa

On 26/03/2020 19:41, Lou Berger wrote:
>> qualification but that is for a future discussion.  107 has had too 
>> many uncertainties and changes on the part of all parties to be 
>> considered.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:02:55 -0400

+1

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 7:45 AM, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> /Loa
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 07:58:36 -0500

Top-posting to agree with Brian and John, that we should formally notify
the ISOC Board of Trustees on whatever the IESG thinks the community has
consensus on.

The last thing on earth that we need is a process appeal (that goes through
the IESG, IAB, and ISOC, because it's a process appeal) in the middle of
trying to seat a Nomcom and review positions. Of course, that can still
happen, but a crisp "we discussed this" would lessen the drama if it does.
.

And I don't actually care what we decide for this year's Nomcom, because
next year's Nomcom eligibility rules may need to be different, anyway.

Best.

Spencer

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:49:11 +0000

>    I certainly consider this worth discussing, although I don't see why you say "bluesheets on more than one day" rather than "more than one bluesheet." With such a reduced agenda, it could easily happen that a person only considered one day of interest.
  
Yes, it could happen that there's only one day interesting to someone.  I suggested multiple days because I thought it showed a high level of interest or involvement in the IETF and that's what we want for nomcom.  It was an engineering trade-off.
  
As for the details of what needs to be done, should we decide to do this, I leave that to the process-wonks. I was answering the question asked.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:41:38 -0400

--On Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:26 +0000 tom petch
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Going forward, if 108 is cancelled, then we should consider
> virtual qualification but that is for a future discussion.
> 107 has had too many uncertainties and changes on the part of
> all parties to be considered.

Noting Spencer's comment about the risk of a process appeal, I
continue to worry that we can't say "107 was not a meeting" for
Nomcom selection purposes and then turn around and say "107 was
the First Meeting of the year" for Nomcom selection purposes and
the rest of the timeline.  

If a single person raised an appeal on the basis that
inconsistencies of that sort are inconsistent with the clear
language of the BCPs and possibly with fairness, unless the
IESG, IAB, and ISOC BoT were willing and able to expedite appeal
processing and carry it out more rapidly than has ever been the
case in the past (and the ISOC BoT would have to sort out
procedures), we could easily end up not being able to select a
Nomcom until June or later.

Independent of the attrativeness of that approach to many who
have spoken up, I don't think it is worth the risk, a risk that
I don't think some reasonable way to count IETF 107 would pose
(if it were handled as Spencer suggests).

   john

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:43:59 -0700

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 3:26 AM, tom petch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Barry
> 

At this point, I agree with this approach.  I though differently early, but that was before I saw the limited agenda for IETF 107.   Except for the plenary, the sessions that were scheduled didn’t overlap with my interests very much.

We will need to be prepared if IETF 108 isn’t face to face, but we have some time to work that out.

Bob

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:44:49 +0000

> I
  
I agree.  And it may be that that particular ship has sailed, since the new IAB and IESG were introduced via webex last night.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:59:21 -0400

--On Thursday, March 26, 2020 15:44 +0000 "Salz, Rich"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I
>     continue to worry that we can't say "107 was not a
> meeting" for     Nomcom selection purposes and then turn
> around and say "107 was     the First Meeting of the year" for
> Nomcom selection purposes and     the rest of the timeline.  
>   
> I agree.  And it may be that that particular ship has sailed,
> since the new IAB and IESG were introduced via webex last
> night.

That too.  And that could be part of the basis for a process
appeal that questioned the legitimacy of any IESG process vote
because, if 107 was no the first meeting of the year for IESG
purposes, then it would not be clear who should have
participated in the vote and discussion (and, given the amount
of turnover on the IAB, the situation there vis-a-vis any appeal
would be even worse).

Unless one wants to bank on there being no one who is aware of
what is going on (participating actively in the IETF or not)
registering such an appeal, I think that option is OBE.

   john

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:37:05 -0400

> the rest of the timeline.

I think we can, as I think the intent of the BCP is clear in that it
refers to in-person meetings.  I think a process change is necessary
to deal with virtual meetings, but I see no issue as things stand.

In addition to that, I think we have latitude to interpret the BCPs in
exceptional circumstances, which this is, and I'm quite confident that
the ISOC BoT would uphold that if it came to them.  We have to find a
reasonable way to handle what's thrown at us in the short term, while
setting up the community to do formal document revisions in the longer
term.

Barry, individual participant

> unless the
> case in the past

We have actually handled some appeals quickly, and, be assured that
the IESG, at least, is committed to working as quickly as possible to
do what it can to get this year's NomCom seated and operational on
schedule.

Barry, ART AD

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:56:15 -0500

Hi, Barry,

> setting up the community to do formal document revisions in the longer

I hope that our community will be OK with "do the right thing" in this
situation - and it's not like "we ignored the BCPs and did the right thing"
is infinitely abusable, given that we aren't talking about changing the
appeals process in any way.

I suspect that it will be really important to get back to running under
BCPs soon, and that will almost certainly requiring changing our BCPs, to
accommodate exceptional circumstances if they become the new normal, or if
they disappear and then reappear in a different form, in another year or
two.

But seating the next Nomcom can come first, and then we can figure out Plan
B(CP).

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:03:23 -0400

Salz, Rich <rsalz=[email-masked]> wrote:
    > Err on the side of including people. Discount 107 for everyone.  BUT
    > include it for those who signed bluesheets on more than one day.

I didn't understand your words, but subsequent emails make me think you are
saying:
        107 occured.
        People who signed bluesheets on more than one day attended.

I find this significantly better than pretending 107 did not happen, and I
tried to state this preference before.

(I also wish to remind that it will probably matter more for 2021 eligibility
than 2020, but we should really examine the data)

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 17:54:39 +0000

saying:
            107 occured.
  
Mostly.  I want to get the largest pool of candidates.

So 107 is a Heisenberg meeting.
	People who signed the etherpad on more than one day get to count 107 in 3 of 5.
	People who did not, get counted from 102-106 for their 3 of 5.

I realize that defining a Heisenmeeting would probably make some people uncomfortable.  But I view it as just accepting the reality.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:08:04 -0400

> 	People who signed the etherpad on more than one day get to count 107 in 3 of 5.
you mean 3 of 6 I believe.
> I realize that defining a Heisenmeeting would probably make some people uncomfortable.  But I view it as just accepting the reality.
It would be interesting to see what the difference in the lists of 
eligible persons would be between the 106 - 3 of 5 and 107 - 3 of 6 
approaches.  I'm actually thinking maybe not more than 5-10 people.  
Then xref that with the volunteers lists for the last 3 nomcoms to see 
if any of the 5-10 actually volunteered.

Mike

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:22:21 +0000

>you mean 3 of 6 I believe.

Nope.  I mean if someone attended multiple days of the virtual, then 107 counted and usual eligibility rules apply.
If someone didn't attend, then 107 didn't exist and the usual eligibility rules apply.
Hence the term, Heisenmeeting.

Whatever process is chosen, there should be a one-time mailing to all who qualify telling/reminding them that they are eligible.

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:28:57 -0500

On 26 Mar 2020, at 12:54, Salz, Rich wrote:

> I realize that defining a Heisenmeeting would probably make some 
> people uncomfortable.  But I view it as just accepting the reality.

If we really want the largest pool of candidates, I don't think we have 
to be so cute; just make it 3 of 6 for the 2020-2021 NomCom only and 
define "attendance" for IETF 107. Bob Hinden convinced me that since 107 
had so few sessions, it's not useful to just treat it as a normal 
meeting, and 3 of 6 solves that issue. We seem to have some momentum 
toward dealing with remote participation generally, so really the only 
NomCom for which we have to worry about making rules immediately is the 
2020-2021 NomCom. So let's just write a soon-to-be-obsolete BCP that 
says:

A. IETF 107 became a remote meeting at the last minute and therefore had 
minimal sessions scheduled and less-than-average attendance.

B. For the 2020-2021 NomCom, we don't want the above fact to interfere 
with NomCom eligibility.

C. Therefore, with regard to the 2020-2021 NomCom selection, IETF 107 
hereby qualifies as an "IETF meeting" for purposes of Volunteer 
Qualification in RFC 8713 Section 4.14.

D. For purposes of Volunteer Qualification in RFC 8713 Section 4.14, 
"attended" and "attendance" at IETF 107 is defined as having one's name 
on the Etherpad attendance list or being in the recorded Webex 
participant list of any X sessions held remotely at IETF 107. 
[Personally, I couldn't care less what X is; any X>=1 is fine with me.]

E. With regard to the 2020-2021 NomCom selection, in the Volunteer 
Qualification of RFC 8713 Section 4.14 is three out of the last six 
meetings instead of three out of the last five. As in RFC 8713 Section 
4.14, the six meetings are the six most recent meetings that ended prior 
to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom volunteers was 
submitted for distribution to the IETF community.

Then we clean things up with a proper BCP that defines eligibility for 
remote participants, and obsolete the above.

pr

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:46:17 -0400

I support ignoring IETF 107 for Nomcom eligibility. That is,
eligibility would be 3 out of 106, 105, 104, 103, and 102.

If it were only the case that, quite rarely, an isolated IETF meeting
could not take place face-to-face, that policy of ignoring the meeting
for eligibility seems adequate. But it looks like it may be 2 or more
IETF meetings in a row, so some better long term solution is called
for.

I should perhaps also mention my opposition to the belief that many
seem to have that bigger and bigger eligibility pools for nomcom
volunteers are always better as long as they have some vague
connection to the IETF. In my opinion the nomcom worked fine in its
early days when the pool was commonly in the 40's. These days it is
almost always over 100 people, which is plenty. The most important
goal of the nomcom is to select good officials for IETF so it is also
important that the people selected be willing to put in the time and
are reasonably familiar with the IETF. And, to avoid excessive
inertia, you have to bar current holders of the offices being selected
from voting membership.

(One thing no one has mentioned in this thread is the relationship to
IETF finances. Isn't the IETF partly funded by meeting registration
fees? If virtual IETF meetings become more common, there should be a
means of charging at least some remote participants. (Just to give an
example, I'd favor free jabber access and audio stream listening but a
significant registration fee (like 1/3 of the attendee fee) to be able
to speak remotely or to speak and be seen (meetecho). I'd be much more
comfortable with having people who remotely participant and pay that
remote registration fee having that count towards nomcom
eligibility...))

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:00:51 -0500

Hi, Pete,

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:30 PM Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >       People who signed the etherpad on more than one day get to count
> 107
> > in 3 of 5.

That sounds right to me.

There is a bit more cleanup to do - we also need to make sure IETF 107
counted as the First Meeting of 2020, in the
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-1 sense, because we seated a
whole bunch of new leadership yesterday, in the middle of what Rich Salz is
reasonably calling a Heisenmeeting.

But, yes, this, as long as we have a complete checklist of what needs to be
redefined in 2020.

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Jared Mauch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:06:16 -0400

> On Mar 13, 2020, at 9:54 AM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dear IESG:
> 

My feelings align with those of Russ if it matters to anyone, this meeting (albeit virtual) counts as in-person.

- Jared

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:01:22 +0000

What worries me is how someone that has not been to a IETF a few times can be I a position to understand how it works and the nuances of the information that are presented. Also in person presence shows a level of commitment to the organisation which is essential to fulfil the Nomcom duties.

The criteria were set for a reason and we should abide by that rationale. For that reason I would prefer that the criteria be remained at three recent physical meetings as it currently is.

If, as is likely, we end up with a virtual meeting in Summer we can think again, but for now we should stick with the original criteria of 3/5 in person meetings.

- Stewart

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:26:38 -0500

On 26 Mar 2020, at 10:01, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> What worries me is how someone that has not been to a IETF a few times 
> can be I a position to understand how it works and the nuances of the 
> information that are presented. Also in person presence shows a level 
> of commitment to the organisation which is essential to fulfil the 
> Nomcom duties.
>
> The criteria were set for a reason and we should abide by that 
> rationale. For that reason I would prefer that the criteria be 
> remained at three recent physical meetings as it currently is.
>
> If, as is likely, we end up with a virtual meeting in Summer we can 
> think again, but for now we should stick with the original criteria of 
> 3/5 in person meetings.

This seems to me to be more about the general eligibility issue being 
discussed on eligibility-discuss, as opposed to the stop-gap that is 
being proposed for the 2020-2021 NomCom, which is affected by 107 in the 
next few months.

pr

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:53:06 +0200

Hi,

On 2020-3-26, at 19:54, Salz, Rich <rsalz=[email-masked]> wrote:
> I want to get the largest pool of candidates.

so that's a worthwhile goal.

But: My guess is that any fine-tuning here would not make a huge difference to the size of the pool of people eligible to be considered as voting members.

The pool that we actually want to maximize is the sub-pool of eligible people *who volunteer to be considered*. If we can convince more eligible people to actually volunteer it would have a much more sizable impact (again, a guess.)

Anyone got data on #eligible vs. #volunteered?

Lars

---

From: Scott Mansfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:42:01 +0000

My two cents...

There are many steps to the process related to nomcom participant selection.

The chair along with the secretariat along with the tools team leverage all
the registration and attendance data present.  My experience is that there
are multiple places data about past attendance is pulled.  This leads to
discrepancies in validation of eligibility that requires investigation on a
case-by-case basis. In the end the nomcom team gets a list together and
sends it to the community for review.  During that process, some in the
community do take the time to review the list and provide their opinions on
the list (kudos to the community!).  There are times that the list is
missing people, there are times the list has people that are not eligible
for various reasons.  Once the list is finalized, the randomizer is run and
the people on the list are contacted to determine if they are willing to do
the job.  Keeping in mind that we need to check for disqualifying factors
like affiliations (no more than 2 of the same) and/or if the individual has
decided to run for leadership.  Once the random list is validated, it is
sent to the community for yet another review.  So the list has to go through
another challenge period before the list of volunteers is finalized.

My point is...  There is a lot of community feedback and transparency to the
volunteer selection process.  There are multiple chances for challenge and
comment.  So while I understand the desire to "reward" people that have
attended 3 out of the last 5 face-to-face IETFs meeting (because they would
be more steeped in the culture I reckon), I find the 3 out of 5 face-to-face
meeting issue to be less important (anachronism really) than the "I'm
willing to do the job" criteria.  As more work is done remotely on email
lists, we have seen that people can be effective with remote attendance.  I
value the face-to-face meetings, but I sense a change (virus
notwithstanding) demonstrating the efficacy of hybrid f2f/virtual meetings.
That leads me to the conclusion that getting virtual attendance counted for
nomcom participation a must.

Currently the requirements on a nomcom member are high.  It is STRONGLY
recommended, that if you are on a nomcom that you attend the Summer meeting
and the Fall meeting IN-PERSON and dedicate a serious bulk of your time at
the Fall meeting for interviews and discussion.  There are eMeetings between
Summer and Fall, and if the nomcom doesn't finish, there are eMeetings after
the Fall meeting.   Each nomcom has its own set of issues.  We have had
remote participants that do practically nothing, we have had remote
participants that perform extremely well.  Same can be said for face-to-face
participants.  It is harder on the face-to-face participants in some ways to
include remote participants in the deliberations at a face-to-face meeting,
but WE are the INTERNET community and should be able to figure it out.

My suggestions:
1) Drop the 3/5 face-to-face requirement for the upcoming nomcom (since we
don't really have a process for virtual participation yet)
2) For this upcoming nomcom - take the list of anyone that checked the
"nomcom willing" box from any of the past 5 meetings (103 - 107) - and
follow the usual process described above.
3) When the call is made for nomcom volunteers, send the
criteria/expectations for participation, and the list from step 2
4) Ask the community for feedback on the list as per usual
5) For IETF 108 (and beyond) registration.  Keep asking the question if the
individual is willing and able to do the nomcom job and start tracking
virtual attendance if you really still want to have some kind of 3 out 5
meeting requirement (virtual, hybrid, face-to-face whatever)
6) Rinse, Repeat

-scott.

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 7:53 AM
To: Salz, Rich <rsalz=[email-masked]>
Cc: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>; Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]>; IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Hi,

But: My guess is that any fine-tuning here would not make a huge difference
to the size of the pool of people eligible to be considered as voting
members.

The pool that we actually want to maximize is the sub-pool of eligible
people *who volunteer to be considered*. If we can convince more eligible
people to actually volunteer it would have a much more sizable impact
(again, a guess.)

Lars

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:19:28 +0000

>    But: My guess is that any fine-tuning here would not make a huge difference to the size of the pool of people eligible to be considered as voting members.
  
We could approximate based on how many "newcomers" are at IETF.  My guess it would be more than negligible.  Whose guess wins?

>    Anyone got data on #eligible vs. #volunteered?
  
And what about my idea of mailing people who qualify, reminding them that they're qualified to serve?

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:24:31 -0400

> But: My guess is that any fine-tuning here would not make a huge
    > difference to the size of the pool of people eligible to be considered
    > as voting members.

It won't matter much for 2020/2021.  It will have a knock-on effect for 2021/2022,
particularly if IETF108 is also virtual, and it will establish a precedent.

    > people *who volunteer to be considered*. If we can convince more
    > eligible people to actually volunteer it would have a much more sizable
    > impact (again, a guess.)

I agree, that would also help more.

(Note that the bunch of people who are most familiar with the IETF often do
 *not* volunteer, because they think they might be running.
 If we could  invert the deadlines, somehow, that might also work more)

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 00:25:35 -0400

The IESG has discussed what the best way is to handle a decision for
eligibility for the 2020/21 NomCom, given the timeframe involved and the
discussions that are already happening.

1. We are concerned that a normal process for discussing a draft,
conducting a last call, and approving a BCP would take too long.

2. We are concerned that rushing such a process by, for example, posting a
draft now and immediately last-calling it without a normal period of
discussion would call into question the legitimacy of our consensus process
and would set a bad precedent.  We also note that have already stated that
we’d like community comments by 30 April, and we are concerned about
cutting that time short in order to write such a draft.

4. We believe the IESG does have — and must have — the latitude to address
exceptional situations such as this and to make exceptions to our
processes.  At the same time, we appreciate and agree with concerns about
overstepping, and we agree that maintaining accountability and appropriate
checks and balances is important.

The IESG, therefore, plans to continue collecting input and evaluating the
community’s rough consensus about the immediate NomCom-eligibility question
through 30 April, as stated.  We will then post a statement and inform the
ISOC Board of Trustees, as we would do with a process BCP.  That statement
will serve as the basis for eligibility to serve on this year’s NomCom, and
this year’s only; it will NOT remain in effect beyond that brief timeframe,
and will make that aspect clear.

If rough consensus of the community is that it is important for the IESG’s
decision to be published as a BCP, we will do so, handling that after the
immediate need for a quick decision has passed and making the publication
for archival purposes.

We also encourage the community to continue and complete the two efforts
that have been started, to formally define an exception process, and to
update NomCom eligibility requirements to account for virtual meetings and
for remote participation.

Barry, for the IESG

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 00:12:27 -0500

On 30 Mar 2020, at 23:25, Barry Leiba wrote:

> 2. We are concerned that rushing such a process by, for example, 
> posting a draft now and immediately last-calling it without a normal 
> period of discussion would call into question the legitimacy of our 
> consensus process and would set a bad precedent.

Barry, I think the IESG has made an error, specifically on this point. 
Last-calling a document for 4 weeks is precisely designed for the 
situation where most (if not all) of the community has not had a chance 
to comment on it. And in the only specifically documented variance 
procedure in the IETF (2026 section 9), this kind of thing is exactly 
what it anticipates: The IESG writes up what it thinks it's heard about 
what the variance should be, it immediately puts it out for Last Call, 
it takes those 4 weeks to assess the consensus of the IETF and adjusts 
the document to suit, and then it publishes. Following that same model 
has a much better chance of standing up to questions of legitimacy than 
the IESG proposal: collecting opinions with no text to look at, and then 
in 4 weeks writing some text that the IESG thinks represents the 
consensus and calling it approved. That is inviting a great deal of 
contention.

You (or I or any number of other people in this discussion) can write up 
and post a draft in less than 24 hours. The IESG can immediately Last 
Call it. Folks can then discuss the document and the IESG to make 
adjustments to it over the next 4 weeks. It can be acted upon once 
approved. To do otherwise goes against the openness of our processes.

Please, IESG, reconsider your decision on this, and quickly. You can do 
the right thing in a reasonable amount of time without trying to do 
something that is inviting a protracted process fight.

pr

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 01:31:44 -0400

On 3/31/20 1:12 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> situation where most (if not all) of the community has not had a 
> chance to comment on it. And in the only specifically documented 
> variance procedure in the IETF (2026 section 9), this kind of thing is 
> exactly what it anticipates: The IESG writes up what it thinks it's 
> heard about what the variance should be, it immediately puts it out 
> for Last Call, it takes those 4 weeks to assess the consensus of the 
> IETF and adjusts the document to suit, and then it publishes. 
> Following that same model has a much better chance of standing up to 
> questions of legitimacy than the IESG proposal: collecting opinions 
> with no text to look at, and then in 4 weeks writing some text that 
> the IESG thinks represents the consensus and calling it approved. That 
> is inviting a great deal of contention.
>
> You (or I or any number of other people in this discussion) can write 
> up and post a draft in less than 24 hours. The IESG can immediately 
> Last Call it. Folks can then discuss the document and the IESG to make 
> Please, IESG, reconsider your decision on this, and quickly. You can 
> do the right thing in a reasonable amount of time without trying to do 

+1.   I was about to raise the same objection, but Pete's response is 
more succinct and precise.

Keith

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 01:02:39 -0500

> conducting a last call, and approving a BCP would take too long.

But earlier you wrote:

| If you haven't already weighed in on this, please post your comment
|here, in this thread on <[email-masked]>, by 30 April 2020.

That's... four weeks.  You don't have to get the BCP published, just
approved, and four weeks is enough time, isn't it?

> discussion would call into question the legitimacy of our consensus process

A last call *is* a normal period of discussion.  Sure, there would be no
preceding discussion, but that's OK -- the minimum time is 4 weeks, and
you've got 28 days + two to spare.

> checks and balances is important.

Perhaps, but it's much better not to even require a debate about that
and follow the standard process.

> and will make that aspect clear.

If the input collection happens on the [email-masked] list, then how is
this different from running an actual IETF Last Call?

> immediate need for a quick decision has passed and making the publication

You can do it all in a single last call.

Are you concerned that the LC would be inconclusive?

> for remote participation.

Sure.

Nico
--

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 01:10:22 -0500

> you've got 28 days + two to spare.

Note that there has already been 2 weeks of "preceding discussion". The 
top of this thread is March 13.

pr

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 01:15:15 -0500

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 01:10:22AM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Note that there has already been 2 weeks of "preceding discussion". The top
> of this thread is March 13.

So, there's 2 days to produce an I-D, and 28 days to run an IETF LC.
Plenty!

This thread alone would be the LC discussion... if only there were an
I-D.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:15:01 +0000

I strongly agree with what Pete and others have said.

Between this and the RFC-Ed WG decision, it's not a good month for the IETF.

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:15:12 -0500

Hi Barry,

> for remote participation.
What happened to Number 3?
Regards,
Behcet

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:30:17 -0400

On 3/31/20 12:25 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> eligibility for the 2020/21 NomCom, given the timeframe involved and 
> the discussions that are already happening.
>
> consensus process and would set a bad precedent.  We also note that 
> have already stated that we’d like community comments by 30 April, and 
> we are concerned about cutting that time short in order to write such 
> a draft.
>
> 4. We believe the IESG does have — and must have — the latitude to 
> address exceptional situations such as this and to make exceptions to 
> our processes.  At the same time, we appreciate and agree with 
> concerns about overstepping, and we agree that maintaining 
> accountability and appropriate checks and balances is important.
>
> The IESG, therefore, plans to continue collecting input and evaluating 
> the community’s rough consensus about the immediate NomCom-eligibility 
> question through 30 April, as stated.  We will then post a statement 
> and inform the ISOC Board of Trustees, as we would do with a process 
> BCP.  That statement will serve as the basis for eligibility to serve 
> on this year’s NomCom, and this year’s only; it will NOT remain in 
> effect beyond that brief timeframe, and will make that aspect clear.
>
> If rough consensus of the community is that it is important for the 
> IESG’s decision to be published as a BCP, we will do so, handling that 
> after the immediate need for a quick decision has passed and making 
> the publication for archival purposes.
>
> We also encourage the community to continue and complete the two 
> efforts that have been started, to formally define an exception 
> process, and to update NomCom eligibility requirements to account for 
> virtual meetings and for remote participation.
>
> Barry, for the IESG
>
After thinking a bit more about this:

a) Without a definite and easily-referenced proposal, it will be much 
more difficult for the IESG to gauge community consensus. An email 
proposal really isn't sufficient because it's not very easily 
referenced.   Also email conversations tend to shift rather quickly so 
that different reviewers will have different ideas about the current 
state of a proposal, again making community input harder to evaluate.   
So IMO it's necessary to have a proposal written up as an Internet-Draft 
and for the Last Call to reference that specific document.

b) Even if IESG has "latitude" such as you describe (which I'm actually 
dubious about), I believe it can only have such latitude to the extent 
that it follows established IETF consensus procedures as closely as 
possible.   So for instance, publishing a BCP (assuming you get 
consensus on it) is not optional, nor is it something that requires an 
additional determination of consensus, because that deviation from 
process is not made necessary by the current emergency.

A good faith effort on IESG's part would look like publishing an I-D, 
like, tomorrow, and Last Calling it.   It's not necessary that the 
proposal be perfect; it's only necessary that it put enough of a stake 
in the ground that the community can evaluate the proposal and IESG can 
make sense of the responses.   If IESG sees from the feedback that 
slight changes are needed to win consensus, making those slight changes 
can be done without another Last Call as quite often happens with other 
IETF consensus documents.

I believe that the community will support any reasonable proposal for 
nomcom eligibility in this one specific instance of nomcom selection, as 
long as that proposal is submitted expeditiously. I have, uh, less 
confidence that the community will support IESG making up its own rules.

Keith

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:56:19 -0400

Hi Pete,

My individual opinion is below.

> On Mar 31, 2020, at 1:12 AM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> 2. We are concerned that rushing such a process by, for example, posting a draft now and immediately last-calling it without a normal period of discussion would call into question the legitimacy of our consensus process and would set a bad precedent.
> 
> Barry, I think the IESG has made an error, specifically on this point. Last-calling a document for 4 weeks is precisely designed for the situation where most (if not all) of the community has not had a chance to comment on it. And in the only specifically documented variance procedure in the IETF (2026 section 9), this kind of thing is exactly what it anticipates: The IESG writes up what it thinks it's heard about what the variance should be, it immediately puts it out for Last Call, it takes those 4 weeks to assess the consensus of the IETF and adjusts the document to suit, and then it publishes. Following that same model has a much better chance of standing up to questions of legitimacy than the IESG proposal: collecting opinions with no text to look at, and then in 4 weeks writing some text that the IESG thinks represents the consensus and calling it approved. That is inviting a great deal of contention.
> 
> You (or I or any number of other people in this discussion) can write up and post a draft in less than 24 hours. The IESG can immediately Last Call it. Folks can then discuss the document and the IESG to make adjustments to it over the next 4 weeks. It can be acted upon once approved. To do otherwise goes against the openness of our processes.
> 
> Please, IESG, reconsider your decision on this, and quickly. You can do the right thing in a reasonable amount of time without trying to do something that is inviting a protracted process fight.

I think what you suggest is a recipe for either delegitimizing the IETF or causing it to enter a state of dysfunction. It assumes there will be consensus at the end of four weeks. But if the community can never reach consensus, then either the nomcom chair will have to figure this out on his or her own, or the nomcom can never be seated, or the IESG will have to illegitimately declare consensus, as Barry implied. The first option might work, but presumably is more objectionable to people such as yourself than what Barry outlined. The second option means people will start rotating off the leadership in 2021 until consensus can be reached and a nomcom can eventually be seated, potentially yielding a period of time where up to half of the IESG and IAB seats are vacant. The third option undermines the value of the consensus process itself.

We made much larger changes to the nomcom process a couple of years ago long before any consensus documents were published. The changes made to the nominations process for the IETF Trust and the LLC Board were reflected in the work of both the 2018 nomcom and the 2019 nomcom, but the documentation of them didn’t finish IETF last call until June 24, 2019. There is no reason why the current circumstances should be held to a different standard.

Being so rule-bound that we jeopardize the mere ability to renew the leadership in the future seems clearly to be the wrong choice.

Alissa

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:01:15 +0300

+1

> On 31 Mar 2020, at 17:15, Salz, Rich <rsalz=[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:14:48 -0400

On 3/31/2020 1:56 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> We made much larger changes to the nomcom process a couple of years ago long before any consensus documents were published. The changes made to the nominations process for the IETF Trust and the LLC Board were reflected in the work of both the 2018 nomcom and the 2019 nomcom, but the documentation of them didn’t finish IETF last call until June 24, 2019. There is no reason why the current circumstances should be held to a different standard

Um - no.    We didn't change the process so much as add additional 
groups to the existing framework.   There was broad agreement that the 
basics weren't up for revision, and that the paperwork was mostly 
backfilling the consensus and was an adjunct to processes that did have 
consensus (IASA changes).   Basically, apples and rocks.

In the current case, I've yet to see consensus, and I'd be surprised to 
get one.    Mainly because we're mostly working without data.   
Basically, it comes down to how many people will drop off the list if we 
exclude 102 (103-106), how many people will get added to the list if we 
include 107 remote registrations (102-107), and  how many will be 
subtracted if we do both (103-107)  or  added if we do neither 
(102-106).    And finally, for the newly eligible, what percentage might 
actually volunteer?

At this point I really don't care all that much because it's probably 
not going to materially affect the outcome of the Nomcom process - 
mainly because it was unexpected enough that no one was in a position to 
game this easily.   Selecting one of these 4 different options at random 
may be the best strategy - everyone will be equally annoyed, but it 
might be possible to get consensus.

Later, Mike

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:25:29 -0400

Strongly agree with Alissa's points here.  We can distinguish between a
tactical decision and a general one, and between consensus and openness.

We have an immediate, tactical decision to make, with time constraints such
that the full IETF consensus process is not viable.  The IESG is right to
do a limited feedback process and make a decision here.

The fact that we're not doing the full process does go against the openness
of the process.  AFAICT, the IESG is in fact being quite open about their
thinking, and soliciting open feedback.  The only difference is that rather
than taking the time for the discussion to settle down to consensus, the
IESG will make a decision based on the information they can get in the time
available.

And if they screw it up, we can fix it when we have time.  As Alissa points
out, we have done this before.  Let's stay agile here.

--Richard

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:57 PM Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:

> posting a draft now and immediately last-calling it without a normal period
> of discussion would call into question the legitimacy of our consensus
> process and would set a bad precedent.
> >
> Last-calling a document for 4 weeks is precisely designed for the situation
> where most (if not all) of the community has not had a chance to comment on
> it. And in the only specifically documented variance procedure in the IETF
> (2026 section 9), this kind of thing is exactly what it anticipates: The
> IESG writes up what it thinks it's heard about what the variance should be,
> it immediately puts it out for Last Call, it takes those 4 weeks to assess
> the consensus of the IETF and adjusts the document to suit, and then it
> publishes. Following that same model has a much better chance of standing
> up to questions of legitimacy than the IESG proposal: collecting opinions
> with no text to look at, and then in 4 weeks writing some text that the
> IESG thinks represents the consensus and calling it approved. That is
> inviting a great deal of contention.
> >
> and post a draft in less than 24 hours. The IESG can immediately Last Call
> it. Folks can then discuss the document and the IESG to make adjustments to
> it over the next 4 weeks. It can be acted upon once approved. To do
> otherwise goes against the openness of our processes.
> >
> I think what you suggest is a recipe for either delegitimizing the IETF or
> causing it to enter a state of dysfunction. It assumes there will be
> consensus at the end of four weeks. But if the community can never reach
> consensus, then either the nomcom chair will have to figure this out on his
> or her own, or the nomcom can never be seated, or the IESG will have to
> illegitimately declare consensus, as Barry implied. The first option might
> work, but presumably is more objectionable to people such as yourself than
> what Barry outlined. The second option means people will start rotating off
> the leadership in 2021 until consensus can be reached and a nomcom can
> eventually be seated, potentially yielding a period of time where up to
> half of the IESG and IAB seats are vacant. The third option undermines the
> value of the consensus process itself.
>
> We made much larger changes to the nomcom process a couple of years ago
> long before any consensus documents were published. The changes made to the
> nominations process for the IETF Trust and the LLC Board were reflected in
> the work of both the 2018 nomcom and the 2019 nomcom, but the documentation
> of them didn’t finish IETF last call until June 24, 2019. There is no
> reason why the current circumstances should be held to a different standard.
>
> Being so rule-bound that we jeopardize the mere ability to renew the
> leadership in the future seems clearly to be the wrong choice.
>
> Alissa
>
>
> >
> > pr
> > --

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:27:41 -0400

> might be possible to get consensus.

I would agree to that point.  I think a decision just needs to be made and
we as the community will need to accept it and move on.  We need a Nomcom
seated, and get on with business.

No matter what we do, it's not going to be perfect or even ideal, so
debating this much further likely is not going to make the outcome any
better (as it assumes there is a "best" position).

regards,

Victor K

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:28:43 -0500

> My individual opinion is below.

Understood.

> I think what you suggest is a recipe for either delegitimizing the 
> IETF or causing it to enter a state of dysfunction. It assumes there 
> will be consensus at the end of four weeks.

It does not assume that, and I don't think you've actually run through 
all of the reasonable outcomes. First of all, this has been discussed 
for two weeks already. I think the IESG has a pretty good idea of the 
leaning of the community and can draft something that has a high 
likelihood of achieving rough consensus. (And remember, rough is good 
enough.) But let's assume the worst case scenario you pose:

> But if the community can never reach consensus, then either the nomcom 
> chair will have to figure this out on his or her own

A bad choice for the reasons you mention below. The NomCom chair should 
not be put in that position.

> or the nomcom can never be seated

A non-choice. That's simply "The IETF self-destructs". We all agree, not 
an acceptable outcome.

> or the IESG will have to illegitimately declare consensus, as Barry 
> implied.

No. At the point where the community really does deadlock and a decision 
needs to be made, the IESG then does have an emergency on its hands. It 
then says, "The community is not coming to consensus about how to deal 
with 107. A choice needs to be made. This regards a BCP, so it's left to 
us, so we are going to take what we read as the closest to IETF 
consensus, add our best judgement as needed, and publish it as an IESG 
statement. Let the chips fall where they may." In that scenario, the 
IESG will have done exactly what it proposed now, with the difference 
being that it's now clear that the community could not come to a rough 
consensus, so the IESG had to make a call. Yes, that could be appealed, 
or cause upset, but those are the situations where the IESG correctly 
has to exercise authority and be comfortable with, "Yes, we might all be 
recalled, but this was the right thing to do."

This way you have given the consensus process a chance to work out the 
problem, but catch it if it falls. The way the IESG has proposed to move 
forward undermines the consensus process and makes an executive 
decision, a much worse outcome.

> We made much larger changes to the nomcom process a couple of years 
> ago...

I'm inclined not to have a discussion about the merit of that in this 
context.

> leadership in the future seems clearly to be the wrong choice.

Nothing I have proposed jeopardizes the ability to renew leadership. 
It's just giving the community a chance to do the right thing.

pr

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:33:26 -0500

See my reply to Alissa for the rest. But on these two points:

On 31 Mar 2020, at 13:25, Richard Barnes wrote:

> We have an immediate, tactical decision to make, with time constraints 
> such that the full IETF consensus process is not viable.

That's the crux of the disagreement. We have to get the decision made in 
a bit over a month according to everyone. (If the ISOC President chooses 
someone who has gone to 3 out of 4 meetings IETF 103-106, then we've 
even got longer.) That's perfectly viable. There's no need to rush to 
the extent the IESG is doing so.

> And if they screw it up, we can fix it when we have time.

There are outcomes that are fixable. There are outcomes that are not. 
Why go down a road that does not need to be gone down? The current 
processes are agile enough for this particular case.

pr

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:42:37 -0500

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 01:28:43PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
> > I think what you suggest is a recipe for either delegitimizing the IETF
> > or causing it to enter a state of dysfunction. It assumes there will be
> > consensus at the end of four weeks.
> 
> It does not assume that, and I don't think you've actually run through all
> of the reasonable outcomes. First of all, this has been discussed for two
> weeks already. I think the IESG has a pretty good idea of the leaning of the
> community and can draft something that has a high likelihood of achieving
> rough consensus. (And remember, rough is good enough.) But let's assume the
> worst case scenario you pose:

Moreover, if there is no consensus at the end of the LC, the IESG could
call it anyways and anyone who feels strongly enough about it can appeal
the call.  That would put the final outcome in exactly the right place:
the IETF Chair and the IAB.

Whereas the IESG just making a decision w/o a Last Call based on a claim
to authority that is -presumably?!- not subject to appeal... strikes me
as even more negative an outcome than an inconclusive LC.

The risk of lack of consensus is overstated anyways.  The options to
choose from are reasonable.  We'll have individual preferences, but none
of the options should be particularly upsetting.

> A bad choice for the reasons you mention below. The NomCom chair should not
> be put in that position.

Indeed.  The appeal authorities should be instead.

> A non-choice. That's simply "The IETF self-destructs". We all agree, not an
> acceptable outcome.

True.  Supposing it could happen, that would be a reason to possibly
eschew whatever path might end up in that outcome.  However, I don't
think it's possible, and the IESG calling a consensus (subject to
appeal) even with an inconclusive LC would be just fine.

Nico
--

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:49:40 -0400

> as even more negative an outcome than an inconclusive LC.

To be clear on this point: Any IESG decision is subject to the normal
appeal process.  An appeal could be filed regardless of which way we
handle this (with or without a BCP).

Barry

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:00:09 -0500

> handle this (with or without a BCP).

Thanks for clarifying that.  That's a relief.

My preference is still for the IESG submitting an I-D and Last Calling
it, and I exhort the IESG to do that.

Nico
--

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:07:31 +0000

I guess someone who prefers to see unjustifiable process breakage can file an appeal and will hopefully get the reasoning.

I see no justification to break the process, but at best will just co-sign an appeal.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:36:28 -0400

While we are sorting this out, and whether we publish an Internet
draft or not, I would like to know this:

As I (Barry, not the IESG as a whole) currently read the rough
consensus, considering what people have said the reasons you all have
given, and the discussion of those reasons, I see things falling
toward option 1.  Specifically, looking at RFC 8713, Section 4.14, FOR
THIS NOMCOM CYCLE ONLY and SETTING NO PRECEDENT, I would replace the
first two paragraphs this way:

   Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of
   the last five in-person IETF meetings in order to volunteer.

   The five meetings are the five most recent in-person meetings that
   ended prior to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom
   volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community.
   For the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee those five meetings are
   IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.

The question I will ask is this: Is there anyone who *can't live with
that outcome*?

That question is not asking what you *prefer*; I've read all of those,
and I am still collecting that input further.  But for the purpose of
this question, does anyone think that outcome is so bad that you can't
accept it?  If you can live with it, there's no need to respond.  Just
let me know if you can't.

Barry

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 02:37:31 +0700

Date:        Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:56:19 -0400
    From:        Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

First, you can all ignore my opinion if you like, I haven't been part of
the IETF process for many years, and don't usually even read any of the
(voluminous) IETF related e-mail I still get sent.   But I noticed all of
this tonight (I have only read a very few of the most recent messages, and
have no idea what proposals have been made).

Second, assuming it isn't already in the nomcomm process doc (I thought
it was, but perhaps not) the first thing that should be done, right now,
is to last call a 2 line (plus 27 pages, or whatever it is up to these days,
of boilerplate) BCP RFC-to-be (I-D initially) which simply says:

	In case a new nomcom is not seated, for any reason, the previous
	nomcom shall continue to serve.

That gets over any "Danger Will Robinson" type nonsense about "we absolutely
have to reach consensus or the whole process falls apart".

The previous nomcom might not be thrilled at this - but it is unlikely
(even this year) to ever be put into practice, but the process needs this
one vulnerability covered (assuming it isn't already).

Beyond that:

  | I think what you suggest is a recipe for either delegitimizing the IETF
  | or causing it to enter a state of dysfunction. It assumes there will be
  | consensus at the end of four weeks.

Anything that is to make forward process has to assume rough consensus
for a change exists.   If we ever get to the state where the IESG starts
saying (for any reason) "we have no consensus on what to do, but we believe
we must do something, so we have decided to do ..." then all is truly lost.

Personally, I'd like that to happen - I believe that the current IESG
process (and workload) is all broken, and needs a revolution to fix it,
and that kind of thing could provoke exactly the needed revolution.

That would be very similar to the IAB's Kobe decision (mid 90's) which
resulted in the revolution which installed (approximately) the current
process.   The same would happen to the IESG I believe (and a good thing
that would be - it would return the IESG back to the job of managing the
IETF's work, and get it out of the standards (including BCP) approval
business).

Overall, I believe that the process Pete set out (along with the BCP I
suggested above) is the best way for all of you to make progress for
this year.

kre

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:13:31 -0400

> The question I will ask is this: Is there anyone who *can't live with

Yes, I can live with this outcome.  It allows the organization to get down
to business and keeps the intent of the documented process sufficient
enough (under the circumstances).

regards,

Victor K

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:31:47 +1300

Works for me.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:24:45 -0500

Hi, Barry,

>    IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.

Bike, meet shed.

I'd suggest this for the last sentence:

   Because no IETF 107 in-person was held, for the 2020-2021 Nominating
Committee those five meetings are
   IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.

> The question I will ask is this: Is there anyone who *can't live with

I could live with that, either with or without my suggested text, of course.

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 20:29:11 -0400

>    Because no IETF 107 in-person was held, for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee those five meetings are

With, indeed; your suggestion makes sense.

Barry