Re: [Eligibility-discuss] The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 02 October 2019 19:50 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
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 663D8120018 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.172, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 AG5nOu1uSZei for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-f172.google.com (mail-oi1-f172.google.com [209.85.167.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EA3512084C for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-f172.google.com with SMTP id i16so468275oie.4 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=24QjOs+jvsx4g+v1poUO9L/aH2seyT1XZB2FOX3cX5U=; b=ipRcLNsg78b+mZ2S/N/yTOPXua4zhxoK7QEjtte535CrcCEXq7WIRuj4lJgRY6mVUq u43miutBIxTYzPTdN6gXNDPFAfmn0oFHl64Mbs6KLt2D8nKHTIPObvz02DhwpGQbPBqw 9awhUCuvqbLD6mCtvyYr14qaSmfLvpUWIvGO0zpS+jf8jk5K631kSEsANoRDjJ8b5/9e UNfM5XbHZOtFxHe3kvpkT2ExoHm6cXtuYra40WdoMm1hOQRiOITWjY+aEHVpX/rHd+w0 yal/zRW16C6tJVusnKxWzo4fY3reaii0Yt8g5+P7NDLIdRYvIWBtgIQLTZWaHeUDVqgb nadw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV7FXPXIgckUAo8JtXJZwvP+JRrSt8mXwShUOtg+PIHfHSPzZMM Oh4mSGdU2zVsl1ojcp7dSR28oOficqganc69h9uJhQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxIGwXsCPstdchiOrPIZ3/00FTA6646jgGGpR8LAVHppeWivIjM9c1sPloUWoi+E2EU5k+4arly4LqwAGErEuQ=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:1c06:: with SMTP id c6mr4316186oic.27.1570045811354; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 12:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+BEoDd5aas9VfAmfcF+H_54w4ETNafVwFAObhY_A2v-Q@mail.gmail.com> <C90E6D6D-D058-40A5-AA3B-2D2002077016@episteme.net> <CALaySJJggQqYhVHSdKCx4BvpiR31oodx9C9NkzfMoFGbUv+gmg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJKxbwYXnE7gcgwmuBUWg_Q+QSx-yYtTCOLoQesB6JLojg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJJh7zvuuuxcs-kE=LaaZP1aXiaT3HpQ30tt4DNOMMP0oQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJJXdWygcFDgdC3yWy36g0YsiW120LbFhQnja+vf85H9vQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJXdWygcFDgdC3yWy36g0YsiW120LbFhQnja+vf85H9vQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 15:50:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVAu1F8Hw9D3kR=ruULnb9DBfNLOLgF7ffq84vtYbvLsSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/bx6a1kI_NXagwNE2tZPAAhYadms>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting
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: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 19:50:14 -0000
Last chance to weigh in on a time: some 30 hours or so remaining. As of now, it looks like we'll have the meeting at 1 PM New York time on 23 October. Barry On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 3:45 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: > > OK, discussion has settled down, so here's a doodle: > https://doodle.com/poll/ip8w53k8en32553f > > Basically: > I'm proposing four possible days, and four possible times on each day, > for 16 choices. > > In New York time, the days are 23, 24, 28, and 29 October. The times > are 3 AM, 1 PM, 4 PM, and 8 PM. > > For any particular likely participant, some of those times are good in > your time zone, and some are horrible. The doodle is set up as a > "yes/no/if need be" poll, and I ask you to please consider (as I've > done for the 3 AM slots) selecting "if need be" for the times that are > bad in your time zone, realizing that some set of participants will > have to suffer a bad time zone, and it might not always be Brian and > others in that part of the world. > > Please doodle quickly, and let's try to get a date/time selected ASAP. > No later than end of day on 3 Oct, please. > > Barry > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:34 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, all. > > > > I am serving as the responsible AD for a virtual meeting (via WebEx) > > and ongoing work to address what's been discussed on this list (the > > "eligibility" list). See below for the problem statement that will > > drive the virtual meeting, and let's see where we get from there. > > This meeting will serve to progress the work that's started on this > > list -- we expect that to be continued on the list and we will have > > further virtual meetings if the participants think that will best help > > keep things progressing. This is a start, not a conclusion. > > > > I want to have an experienced co-chair and a co-chair from among the > > remote participants to handle this. I'd like to find people who could > > see the work through if it should form a working group, but for now > > I'm looking for chairs for the virtual meeting and short-term > > follow-up. > > > > Pete Resnick has agreed to be the experienced co-chair. I'd like to > > avoid having as chairs those who have been (and want to be) very > > active in the discussion. If others of you -- remote participants who > > want to see this work be done but don't intend to be major > > contributors -- would like to volunteer as co-chairs with Pete, please > > let me know off list. Ideally you will be interested in learning how > > to lead consensus building in an IETF group, and would want to > > continue your participation beyond this limited work. > > > > The rules for virtual meetings require that we give two weeks' notice > > of the meeting time, but I'd like to do closer to four weeks, so we > > need to nail down a date very soon. It's going to be challenging to > > find a time of day that works for enough of us, and I'll have to ask > > people to be very flexible about times, realizing that *someone* is > > likely to have to participate at a pretty awful hour, local time. > > > > I'd like to get feedback on this plan in the next few days, and then > > put out a doodle around the end of the week to try to pick a day and > > time. If you intend to participate, please post to this thread your > > intent and your time zone (as "UTC-4", "UTC+1", and so on, relative to > > UTC). > > > > I think we do need to decide, as a group, whether the limited update > > to the recall process is important enough to stand on its own... or > > whether it makes more sense to address the broader issue of > > enfranchising remote participants, and to update the recall process as > > part of that. There will certainly be time in the virtual meeting to > > have that discussion. > > > > Barry > > > > ================================ > > Problem statement > > > > The current description of the process for initiating petitions for > > recalls for NomCom-appointed roles is described in RFC 7437 (updated > > by draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis, in the RFC Editor queue). That > > process needs updates. > > > > The scope of this work includes the following three specific issues > > with the petition process; other parts of the recall model and other > > ways of removing Nomcom-appointees are explicitly out of scope. > > > > The three issues are: > > > > - Remote participants are not eligible to seek redress through the > > recall process. > > > > - Members of bodies appointed by the NomCom are also not eligible, and > > this restricts the timely initiation of a recall petition. > > > > - The required number of signatories sets a very high barrier to > > initiate a recall petition. > > > > > > The virtual meeting > > > > The purpose of virtual meeting is to examine the above-mentioned > > issues and determine, for each, whether there is sufficient interest, > > agreement, and importance to continue work on that item, and, if so, > > how to best organize that work. A possible starting point for the > > work is draft-moonesamy-recall-rev. > > > > This is all part of a larger set of discussions surrounding both the > > recall process and the eligibility of remote participants to be voting > > members of the NomCom. In order to keep the work bounded, for the > > purpose of this meeting these larger discussions are secondary: they > > will be discussed, but we should try to maintain a tactical focus. > > ================================ > > -- > Eligibility-discuss mailing list > Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
- [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Salz, Rich
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Barry Leiba
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Salz, Rich
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Salz, Rich
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … S Moonesamy
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … S Moonesamy
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … S Moonesamy
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] The "eligibility" list,… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] The "eligibility" list,… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] The "eligibility" list,… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] The "eligibility" list,… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … S Moonesamy
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Melinda Shore
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" … S Moonesamy
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] The "eligibility" list,… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] The "eligibility" list,… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] The "eligibility" list,… Barry Leiba