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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

In case it helps, I would prefer to change this text to something like this:

OLD:

   Attendance at three meetings requires at least eight months of
   waiting.  Given the volume of volunteers necessary to capture the
   process, an attack requires a surge in attendees over the course of a
   year.  Such a surge might trigger a community challenge to the list
   of eligible volunteers, and/or a leadership investigation to detect
   suspicious behavior (e.g., logging in to a single session and then
   immediately logging out).  In the event of abuse of process, the
   leadership would then have months to adjust policy in response before
   the NomCom cycle begins.

NEW:

   Attendance at three meetings requires at least eight months of
   waiting.  Given the volume of volunteers necessary to capture the
   process, an attack requires a surge in attendees over the course of a
   year.  Such a surge might trigger a community challenge to the list
   of eligible volunteers, and/or an IESG led investigation to detect
   suspicious behavior (e.g., logging in to a single session and then
   immediately logging out).  In the event of abuse of process, the
   IESG is responsible for ensuring that any necessary steps to mitigate
   the abuse are taken before the NomCom cycle begins.

I don't really care if it is someone else other than the IESG (e.g., IAB, previous year's NomCom, ISOC board of trustees), although I suspect that the IESG is most appropriate, but IMO, being clear who is responsible is helpful.

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 02 February 2023 06:49
> To: Martin Duke <[e-mail]>; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-elegy-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-
> elegy-rfc8989bis-04: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 
> Martin Duke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > Several reviews have indicated some discomfort with no one in
>     > particular being in charge of doing investigations.
> 
> Perhaps our AD could state who he thinks will be in charge.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
>