Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Discussion at gendispatch?

"Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net> Thu, 07 November 2019 00:12 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
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 042FB12008F for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:12:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id emxYnV29ZtaK for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:12:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B0B5120025 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:12:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C21935B2F4; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:12:36 -0600 (CST)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YDaI6vWdkxNp; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:12:35 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [172.16.1.18] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50D3A935B2EB; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:12:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:12:34 -0600
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13r5655)
Message-ID: <1753CDF1-7944-4BBA-8E73-DA8E731D786E@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <779A84AD78B58E0DD0729F1C@PSB>
References: <A809A60C-D235-479D-8239-85332AC0569B@episteme.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20191106061852.12a70190@elandnews.com> <1A26C4AF-E579-4215-AC2C-0E470616DC63@episteme.net> <779A84AD78B58E0DD0729F1C@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/aqPce2g9dcdZXqTU6sv4VzVHq0I>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Discussion at gendispatch?
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:12:45 -0000

On 6 Nov 2019, at 15:21, John C Klensin wrote:

> Pete,
>
> This is fine with me with, as is my wont, a few qualifications
> and concerns:
>
> (1) It seems to me that the call and the (very few) email notes
> that followed suggested some changes we might want to make in
> the document.  I don't think we are even close to consensus on
> them but, if we are going to reopen the discussion in a
> different forum, I think it would be very helpful to put
> discussion placeholders in the document.

It would be fine to put placeholders in the document, but I'm inclined 
not to "reopen the discussion in a different forum". That is, the 
purpose of gendispatch is to dispatch: Do a short review of the issues 
that are open, get a sense on the amount of work required to move it 
forward (if at all), and recommend whether to form a WG, have it AD 
sponsored, etc. In particular, gendispatch has no charter to "get the 
work done", so the only thing getting such a list into the document will 
do is give a better idea as to how to handle the document. (Of course, 
when we discuss such things, people are bound to ask questions and 
discuss some of the issues in the document, but the plan is to keep that 
discussion very limited.)

Whether the below should go into the document are entirely for a 
discussion on this list.

pr

> With the understanding
> that this is not a complete list and that others may consider
> some of these to be settled,  the topics that come to mind at
> the moment,  are
>
> (1)  Whether it should be possible to initiate a recall from a
> petition all of whose signatories are remote or if we need to
> require some signatures from people who are nomcom-qualified or
> at least attend some meetings in person?
>
> (2) Whether people with some special historical status wrt the
> IETF such as having been Nomcom-qualified at some point, having
> RFCs published in the IETF Stream, having been a WG Chair or
> member of the IAB or IESG, having attended some number of
> meetings, etc., should have special status wrt signing recall
> petitions?  And, if so, what good does it do them or the
> community?
>
> (3) Whether members of an I* body should be treated in some
> special way wrt recalls.  It has been pointed out that, if the
> number of required signatures  is reduced to 10, the IESG
> doesn't need special provisions to initiate a recall all by
> itself.  But that turns the question around, to, e.g., whether
> the members of an I* body (or more than one of them) should be
> allowed to initiate a recall on their own or whether some
> external signatures should be required.
>
> (4) Whether registration should be sufficient to count as remote
> participation or whether, e.g., someone should be required to
> sign into some WG sessions in Meetecho as a participant?  If the
> answer to this question is "yes", should signing at least some
> WG blue sheets (rather than, e.g., paying the registration fee
> and spending the week at the beach or bar) be required for
> nomcom-eligibility>
>
> In addition, and drawing inspiration [1] from an ICANN call a
> few of hours ago, we know from other bodies and even some IETF
> experience that two ways to kill an idea are to either keep
> changing the discussion venue or to deal with the report of one
> committee by creating a new committee.  Noting that the modern
> incarnation of this effort was an IETF list discussion and I-D
> posted in the first quarter of the year, a demand for a BOF, an
> discussion of virtual BoFs that distracted almost everyone from
> the issue(s), a discussion that was moved to this list (and, in
> the process, nearly killed off), then an interim meeting that
> took months to organize, I think any discussion at gendispatch
> should (MUST?) be carefully scoped and constrained so as to
> prevent yet another diversion.
>
>     john
>
> [1] That might not be quite the right term, but ICANN has set
> world-class examples of how to prevent conclusions or actions
> but appointing one committee or study effort after another,
> after another, after another, ...
>
> --On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 12:02 -0600 Pete Resnick
> <resnick@episteme.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6 Nov 2019, at 8:29, S Moonesamy wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Pete,
>>> At 05:22 AM 06-11-2019, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>>> Chatting with the ADs, we thought it might be useful to take
>>>> a bit of  agenda time at the gendispatch meeting to discuss
>>>> whether the  eligibility work is going to simply need AD
>>>> sponsorship, or a new WG,  or no action, or... Thoughts? The
>>>> gendispatch meeting is Mon, 18 Nov  at 18:10 Singapore Time
>>>> (10:10 UTC, 05:10 US Eastern Time, 14:10  Mauritius Time).
>>>> Are the authors available (and sufficiently awake)  at that
>>>> time in order to participate?
>>>
>>> Thanks for reaching out.  I'll attend the WG session
>>> remotely.  Could  draft-moonesamy-recall-rev (it expires on
>>> November 16) be placed on  the agenda?
>>
>> Of course, though I'm sure if you submitted a new version just
>> to prevent expiration, Barry would go ahead and approve it.
>>
>> I think I can do a quick summary of the document and the
>> conclusions of the virtual meeting, and you can join the
>> meetecho to answer any questions.
>>
>> pr


-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best