Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Seeking reviews for draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Collecting "what we've also discussed" into another document, so that
    > people don't have to chase fairly obscure email threads (which are rarely
    > short, when Nomcom topics are discussed), would be valuable.

Agreed.

    >> 1) These are the things we plan to implement for 2021.
    >>
    >> 2) These are the things that we are considering for the future.
    >> There are either unresolved (but solvable) issues with them and/or
    >> We didn't want to change too much at once.
    >>

    > I'd offer a slightly different framing for 2 and for 3:

    2> - "We think we could get IETF Consensus for this change in the future
    2> based on discussion to date, but it's not part of the current
    2> experiment"

    3> - "We don't think we could get IETF Consensus for this change in the
    3> future based on discussion to date"

Your wording is better.

The reason I think that we need to tell people about <2> is that I think
it is reasonable to say what might get "measured", so they can adopt earlier.

    > ISTM that if we'd tried to get IETF Consensus for eligibility of remote
    > attendees at any point, pre-CoViD-19, we would have concluded that it was a
    > "bad idea", for reasons that have already been raised about gaming and sock
    > puppets, but things really did change ("literally no one has attended the
    > last three IETF meetings in person, so literally no one will be eligible to
    > serve on Nomcom"). A previously "bad idea" may be the best idea we can come
    > up with, in a given situation.

+1

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide