Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 1:15 PM, Martin Duke <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Thanks Warren,
>
> Most obviously, if EvilCorp wants to take over the IESG, it can send 100
> employees and have each one claim affiliation with a differentmnon-existent
> organization or a shell company.
>
> Clearly there are gray areas regarding who is really pulling the strings,
> but this is a non-normative bit so I don't know that we need to be
> super-precise here. There is always going to have to be human discretion to
> determing if behavior is inappropriate or not.
>


Yup - "Note that I don't really view this as major issue -- if we end up in
a scenario where people are gaming this, then we've already lost."...

W



> Martin
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 8:20 AM Warren Kumari via Datatracker <noreply@
> ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/
>> handling-ballot-positions/
>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "The two-per-organization limit in [RFC8713] complicates such an attack.
>> To
>> circumvent it, an organization must either [...] (3) propose candidates
>> with
>> false affiliations."
>>
>> It's not really clear to me what a "false affiliation" actually is -- in
>> some
>> other organizations, where voting is a thing, it is common for there to
>> be lots
>> of one or two person consulting companies. These consultants all have
>> different
>> affiliations, they just *happen* to have contracts with the same larger
>> organization, and also just *happen* to all vote in the same way... Would
>> these
>> be false affiliations? Note that I don't really view this as major issue
>> -- if
>> we end up in a scenario where people are gaming this, then we've already
>> lost.
>>
>> As a nit: 'either' is generally used with 2 options.
>>
>> Thanks to Dan Romascanu for the OpsDir review.
>
>