Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05.txt

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

No, but if you're a company with 10,000 employees and the cost of signing up is minimal and they don't have to travel, you could pretty easily guarantee two seats on the Nomcom.

Anyway - we're getting into the weeds here.  This is not a risk if we restrict it to just IETF110, and why not - the experiment doesn't run longer anyway.

Bron.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020, at 21:51, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> OK. I understand the concern, but I cannot believe it is a mainstream worry.

>  

> A

>  

> *From:* Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]> 
> *Sent:* 10 September 2020 12:47
> *To:* Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>; Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>; 'Michael Richardson' <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05.txt

>  

> I believe the theory is that multiple "identities" would resolve down to one "actor" when selected, who would then show up in person and press their party line.  It's quite a complex process, but it does appear to be the only way that one would branch-stack this process.  And of course, you'd have to find someone willing to play the part of a false identity.

> 
> Bron.

>  

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020, at 21:26, Adrian Farrel wrote:

>> Hi Bron,

>>  

>> Thanks for your proposal (which has, I think, been on the table for a while). I would accept it.

>>  

>> Should we have a separate thread about the whole sock-puppet thing? Or shall we deal with it here?

>> You are suggesting that people might establish false Datatracker accounts, register to attend remotely, pay for or apply for a bursary for attendance for three out of five meetings, put their names forward to be on NomCom, get selected, and then what? Will the sock-puppet show up to NomCom calls and meetings?

>>  

>> Best,

>> Adrian

>>  

>> *From:* Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]> 
>> *Sent:* 10 September 2020 12:12
>> *To:* Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>; Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>; 'Michael Richardson' <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05.txt

>>  

>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020, at 20:12, Adrian Farrel wrote:

>>> Hi Eric,

>>>  

>>>>  

>>>> Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>>>     > 1) we should not include remote participants for IETF106 and earlier.

>>>>     > They did not have an expectation of eligibility.  I hold this very

>>>>     > weakly and would be easily persuaded to change my mind!

>>>>  

>>>> I was going to post the same thing.

>>>>  

>>>>     > 2) we should include remote participants for IETF110 (and any future

>>>>     > IETFs if this document is renewed) regardless of whether there is a

>>>>     > face-to-face component.

>>>>  

>>>> I can live with this, but I believe that this is what the other paths are for.

>>>> to be clear: I don't think that we should count remote attendees when there

>>>> is a face-to-face meeting.

>>>>  

>>>  

>>> I agree with Michael. The reason we are making this adjustment is because we are not having in-person meetings. If we have in-person meetings again, we can of course decide to include remote people, but that's not a decision we should take now.

>>>  

>>> [AF] Well, I guess I disagree with Michael once, and you twice.

>>>  

>>> I am fine with not including remote attendees at previous in-person meetings, but we have to handle future meetings. 

>>  

>> Can I propose the following:

>>  

>> Remote attendance will be included for IETF110 regardless of whether there is an in-person meeting, as we don't expect that everyone will be able to travel.

>>  

>> Changing the treatment of meetings after IETF110 is not done by this document - we need to publish a new document anyway in order to extend this experiment, and that new document could choose whatever treatment it likes.

>>  

>> So - this means that ONLY IETF109 and IETF110 could be sockpuppetted, and that's not enough for eligibility by itself.

>>  

>> Cheers,

>> 
>> Bron.

>>  

>>  

>> --

>>   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd

>>   [e-mail]

>>  

>>  

>  

> --

>   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd

>   [e-mail]

>  

>  


--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [e-mail]