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

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

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] <mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Sent: 10 September 2020 12:12
To: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Eric Rescorla <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; 'Michael Richardson' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]> 

 

 

 

--

  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd

  [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>