Re: [Eligibility-discuss] ISE vs IETF Stream RFCs for Path 3

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 30 August 2022 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C9FC152707 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.706
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (OpenSSL error: data too large for modulus)" header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OSUYW9Vz4Qpm for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA57AC14CE40 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E18184DC; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 14:41:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Mrevv2eCZHbC; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 14:41:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D8F18499; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 14:41:16 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1661884876; bh=MLwOJlGpBEwaokWOVXCENBAiRO0Q+U4a/rVs6A3jC4I=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=xP++tBCUigTo7KhGMiPEkgxVr26R/PCNRgMqg/QO44loLTFdcxmhz37lN2g6YFJdX D5OkCzrwyEV9+zHn6aBdB6wyl5Hvt7o/+EqNF2TDGG/9Rg3gg4QvrkEgM0poJzd1T1 3pjpuN0WwIjsFKc4FwpFDDktaZpd6KM+6nXFgd9Q3d5IxfNxCBe0o8khx+MeI543lM FGpQZRD8XFO7CoZumSPsMeU/fb3nFEmNWEoPtfIOxbARuC0Y7c6I+AMx6A7l3FckD6 0zoUKf9NnZT29Q2Y3b9jfPO5l2GoZk4pnuqdLwxO2A1xUJhkckPttlDeF8EuL5Uai2 fFMYcQeyQrKqQ==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0544E504; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 14:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <08d901d8bc90$eec4b150$cc4e13f0$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <CALaySJ+uvZME0bWQnB9tSvABxkjgsTG8xpfLT1g62bBL3QeG6w@mail.gmail.com> <2b7ada30-7919-fef4-6d8a-6bd85e1c5625@lear.ch> <edb6684b-a1cb-6e95-eac9-1f7e9fc9f0ad@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOJk-5ksk+mixU8Qm1gp1BDEd=0fgQ+hd9TcgACqa82ew@mail.gmail.com> <5012c5dc-e8c0-202c-0a28-6cf2f982b77d@lear.ch> <CABcZeBMe1wckz0edXyETTp2qAMKZ9QbZBGEoM8cMHahbUAk+1w@mail.gmail.com> <d25f4549-5976-6c1e-6356-e48ca8251f19@lear.ch> <31835.1661872935@localhost> <08d901d8bc90$eec4b150$cc4e13f0$@olddog.co.uk>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 14:20:51 -0400
Message-ID: <2347.1661883651@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/I5I63dBeG8avBCkDmQa7WjxOvIU>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] ISE vs IETF Stream RFCs for Path 3
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF eligibility procedures <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 18:21:01 -0000


Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
    > And on another point. The front page debate is painful. It is often the
    > case that one or two people have to step back from the front page,
    > allowing themselves to be listed as Contributors. They usually do this
    > with good grace notwithstanding the "loss" of association with the
    > document. Now we are giving them another reason to push back.

There are two kinds of Contributors now, btw.

There are those listed in the Acknowledgments or Contributions section in
english.  And there are those listed in the XML.  The XML hasn't been used
much to date, (and might even be absent from the v2, I don't know,didn't check),
but it is now quite easy to move an author from authors: yaml section in
kramdown to contributors section.

<NOHATS>
I've been pushing for sometime to make the XML-Contributors section better
used, specifically because of the ability to mechanically pull them out, and
potentially list them in a path-3-like process.

    > And another point: *all* the names on the front page of an IETF RFC are
    > at the discretion of the WG chairs. While this is largely a theoretical
    > point, it does happen that chairs appoint a single editor to go on the
    > front page, moving everyone else to be Contributors.

Yes.  And that's exactly where I want the XML-Contributors to be used, and
where I'd like Path 3 to consider that.  I don't mind if the threshold is higher.

    > We have a severe case of unintended consequences here. The cause is
    > trying to assign a qualitative measure of IETF participation without
    > understanding that this might motivate other behaviours.

    > Frankly, if we are going to count remote attendance at IETF meetings
    > (registration and payment/waiver) then RFC authorship is not important
    > enough to include as a mechanisms.

?- I wonder if there are some words confused here.



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide