Re: [Eligibility-discuss] ways to advance the discussion

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

Should we request a charter to deal with this?

regards,

Victor K

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 5:56 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 31-Mar-20 06:49, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > 1) I think that we need to have a virtual interim/design-team meeting.
> >    On the one hand, I see the next month as rather full of other
> meetings,
> >    and I'm loath to try to fit something in the next ten days, on the
> >    other hand, I think that there is some urgency to this.
> >    We aren't a WG ... do we have a convenor for this list?
> >    My observation of who is active on this topic is that the people are
> >    -0400 (eastern), -0700 (pacific) and +13 (NZ).
> >
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20200330&p1=188&p2=22&p3=224
> >    I could post a doodle, looks like late afternoon eastern works.
>
> We're not a WG and don't have a chair, so honestly I'm not clear how
> a meeting would work.
>
> > 2) A key discussion point is defense against gaming of the system.
> >    I suggest that any proposal capture that discussion/concern in it's
> >    Security Considerations.
> >    I don't think we can come up with a system that is game-proof, but I
> think
> >    that we can probably agree about what the cost of gaming a particular
> >    system is.
> >    (I note that in the randomized selection criteria for nomcom suggests
> >    somewhere that if someone can game all the inputs, then they probably
> are
> >    so rich and well connected, that they don't need to.  So, like the
> various
> >    big physics experiments, we can never say particle X does not exist,
> but
> >    rather that it does not exist with mass < X, etc.)
>
> I'm not sure I'd put in Sec Cons rather than a separate section, but yes,
> some gameability considerations would be a good idea.
>
> > 3) A second key discussion point is the extent that we are trying to be
> more
> >    inclusive of different patterns of participation, vs that we are
> trying to
> >    "simply" find a way to recognize the current ways of particiation,
> given
> >    that we are remote.
> >    Guess what: this looks like a problem statement dispute.
>
> I think we can expect at least 2 years of perturbation. Certainly NZ is
> expecting
> at least 2 years disruption to the tourist industry, and I don't see why
> the
> conference industry will be different. It also seems to me that we're
> highly
> unlikely to revert to three meetings a year, ever. And all that seems way
> out
> of scope for this list, as is the 2020 NomCom. I think a two-year
> experiment with
> eligibility criteria is appropriate, precisely because we don't even know
> what
> the future pattern of participation will be. So there isn't much point in
> thinking
> about the long term yet.
>
> >
> > 4) There a number of proposals to change how the nomcom is selected from
> the
> >    pool, or to change the way the pool is managed during section, or the
> >    restrict entry to the pool based upon the contents of the pool.
> >    Some suggest that doing two changes is a bad experiment, while others
> >    have suggested that not making additional changes is effectively not
> >    properly controlling the experiment (I'm paraphrasing them)
>
> Yes, experimenting with the real world when it keeps changing is tricky.
>
>     Brian
>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>