Re: [Cfrg] [Eligibility-discuss] "Additional Criteria"

Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> Fri, 31 July 2020 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <msj@nthpermutation.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E653A0BE2 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8TUEdizeCAi7 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D00E23A0BE3 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id c12so15011494qtn.9 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=fO1/4QarItfQYCR1DlS+oBd43wZwgi/jU5TmIhYnIWs=; b=XtyDInuF9VqnbCk+cRPLfD+B6lFKScL40UXJITiHB0XVnSwbwD7KXPdK9dZ5v5dtEk uLh/Z74YCKbO+eLOLkTuXNNlTCxZtEs9ORbx+W/h60EYdATHxqRcuUT0QEgBazGEHx1b xpJw4mzodGwzrhJHytTlbjl+/MjqR3GOZwYpjIjQvKG46xc8VJ1o5Ym4dki9gFuwgnYe pRG66HNoe9mwLkRjaJd9W2v4Kjcewj60Id/Wko7LzpJlajMGByPBe+mvIrzCsMx1XxLE O9fQLOTJ7XfzEPTm/5cqw8AXT+3GeC2L9b53KtiGbOgAr8iJNQOWWSEPMN/5tJD2LzUw GAPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=fO1/4QarItfQYCR1DlS+oBd43wZwgi/jU5TmIhYnIWs=; b=Akk6niXt7yeIb3/aIrwaBJEioxW8c2ApMkTfkCbFryO5Jf2x/+b+LjKsbVUmLyiHJ4 CDpkmtdfzU6ipBHi88IGim1IauSMVLQy/7fhOvWLvJMhCEoGiWPQaBGKGmqdAzxwXGiu zMrEdTe+k1s5Gi7uVrZTs+0kjgziASz41DlJxZUVNdUKH2TmZL45K97NpZUQ3B8JOxF6 9ulU15DiRKn98g1BhqSPV0dXjElvVSxTsYaMWbX+UzRaGhvroHAVMtz7rU+/8tdD7c0X 6CKlO6NY3RvcDBiex432YR4R3v2IHoLIrqvT+QuSK8nn59kjyAg8l5mNoeiTo3RVgGFt fxKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+oZxvq1KuL4rr0ogmnzqiy8ywZ3Xsy5IOToP7MWz+tinyuyY8 MOEZCAmTQxT0D5y5hL59A7eUcpbZJHOSfw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJysl77YPb7mtTmO+1eV7mSVXdWHtKTTbjwBOFTICRZp1SrQF0tsof5t0Ruo75xwwzINV/VxeQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:38e5:: with SMTP id g34mr5503857qtc.317.1596229477306; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-71-114-22-128.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.114.22.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q17sm3025699qte.61.2020.07.31.14.04.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org, "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
References: <CA+9kkMB_5ARO4fg9XAXVc5Ytz3TDsrQX5MPWPtmbALZBBtO-Sw@mail.gmail.com> <8067B111-FA6F-4DA4-9AF1-29A0765905A9@fugue.com> <CA+9kkMA3Bwdy2Oo+KghbCk9Tj6e3qGd25JRHLd8RUXNCD6urMA@mail.gmail.com> <2A09808B-DD11-4ECA-B7C6-9799CEB2C74A@fugue.com> <6E8EF3028098A52B4708627C@PSB> <4a038880-86de-e5c7-d1bc-d6f8c26b6400@joelhalpern.com> <5B866B33-8934-42F6-92D4-D05C06FE073D@fugue.com> <50D70AEC-3697-44B7-B249-04E378E2B8E9@fugue.com> <20aa7fba-d9ef-95ed-c949-992267b93da8@joelhalpern.com> <70C0ABD4-7B10-45E1-895B-27701FEFA55C@fugue.com> <19ac3b73-56a5-7f46-00be-60cf62dd7afc@nthpermutation.com> <9AB6703B-BF79-4837-B833-E83429621E7F@fugue.com>
From: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Message-ID: <44b53b90-2ed0-b920-4df6-7ae0c3be1f19@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 17:04:35 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9AB6703B-BF79-4837-B833-E83429621E7F@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------438A162E97A6F9060B881BC1"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/o4NyLh5Kw28wB3hFJuTkScCPUgI>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] [Eligibility-discuss] "Additional Criteria"
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 21:04:42 -0000

On 7/30/2020 10:34 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2020, at 9:17 PM, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com 
> <mailto:msj@nthpermutation.com>> wrote:
>> How do you propose to handle challenges?  E.g.,  "Why am I not on the 
>> list and what about the three comments I made on that obscure mailing 
>> list a year ago that obviously mattered?"
>
> “That wasn’t an IETF working group mailing list.”

Yes, but for example rfced-future@iab.org is an IETF community working 
group mailing list, and cfrg@irtf.org is an IETF community mailing list 
- need I go on?


>
>> or "Why is X on the list - they keep making stupid comments.  If I 
>> knew all I had to do was make stupid comments I would have made more."
>
> "X is on the mailing list because the IETF is an open organization and 
> anybody can join our working group mailing lists and attempt to 
> contribute."

Why is X on the list of qualified people - not why is X on the mailing 
list....    in any event, is "+1" a contribution?   Is "this idea is 
stupid for [list of reasons that have been debunked many many many 
times]" a contribution?   If so, I can automate a random +1 or -1 to be 
sent to the list every say 10 topics.

>> Any criteria that anyone proposes that cannot be evaluated in an 
>> objective manner (and ideally from public records automatically by 
>> software) is IMNSHO a non-starter.
>>
> “A message that resulted in the intervention of the sergeant-at-arms 
> or resulted in the Ombudsteam intervening is excluded from consdieration."

The only list that has an SAA is the IETF list - other lists are 
generally managed by the WG chair or some other means. And as Pete 
noted, its going to be rare that anyone from the OT is going to be 
providing public information.


>> If you propose subjective requirements e.g. "participate on the 
>> mailing list to the  point where that would qualify them" you're 
>> going to need someone to decide :the point where that would qualify 
>> them" and lots of someones to handle the appeals and that should be 
>> part of the proposal.  So far I haven't seen that.
>>
> N messages (order of 10?) to a working group mailing list no more than 
> M seconds apart (where M is probably on the order of 10368000) during 
> the past L seconds (where L is probably on the order of 63072000) are 
> required to qualify. The script we ran showed that you had a gap that 
> was too long: you disappeared for 10400000 seconds between April and 
> July of 2020. This isn’t hugely difficult to automate.

And again - I can set up a counter-script to mail to the list to meet 
any published criteria like this.

But regardless, what you miss with your criteria are actual 
contributions: private notes to the WG chair, or back and forths with 
the authors on a document, or, for the GITHUB based WGs, you might miss 
pull requests or comments in the issues trackers.  Or the document that 
the contributor was working on is awaiting an action by the WG chair, by 
the AD, or by the RPC.  I don't find your criteria either useful or all 
that related to the concept of "contributing".


>> With all of these discussions, I've pretty much settled back into 
>> "registered (and attended) for 3 of the last 5 meetings in the mode 
>> for which the meeting is held excluding 107".   It's simple, it shows 
>> at least a little effort to participate, and we've got 109 and 110 to 
>> watch for possible gaming of the system since the next Nomcom won't 
>> be selected until after those two meetings.    I might add in "prove 
>> you're a unique non-virtual human" and I might track the rate of 
>> change for all the organizations in qualified people and report those 
>> statistics with an eye to revisiting the selection process 
>> statistical bias if necessary.
>>
> And when we go back to in-person meetings, what then?
>
>
The phrase was "in the mode for which the meeting is held" - e.g. if its 
an in person meeting, then in-person counts.   Else remote counts.  Note 
that this is not a long term proposal, just one to get us through the 
next Nomcom.

I'm coming to the belief that maybe we need to concentrate more on how 
the Nomcom is selected, and less on who is eligible to be selected.  As 
others have noted - "3 of 5 in person" was rough shorthand for "knows 
the IETF, and is up to date on its needs". Randomly picking people from 
a hat to then having them select from a set of volunteers for each 
position has mostly worked, but the IETF of today is not the IETF of 
even 10 years ago, and it may be time to rethink the process by which we 
select the ADs, Chair and IAB members.   That is obviously a much longer 
discussion.

Assuming we institute protections against sock puppets and virtual 
identities, I would be surprised if taking 3 of 5 from the registered 
attendees (who show up for at least one on-line session) for as long as 
we're virtual is any better or any worse than the results we were 
getting from the in person meetings. Let's pick something simple, and 
revisit it after the next Nomcom is seated.

Later, Mike