Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,
At 03:18 PM 27-04-2019, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>That does not clarify the issue of "participation" at all.  We can't
>have it be a criterion of eligibility if it does not have a
>well-defined public meaning.

There was a paper about "In-Person and Remote Participation Review at 
IETF: Collaborating Without Borders" [1].  The paper mentioned that 
"the remote participant was able to participate and interact by voice 
and text".

There was a presentation [2] by the IETF Security Area Directors in 
which the following is mentioned: "IETF-wide meetings are held three 
times a year, participation can be in person or remotely".  There is 
also an IETF Chair report [3] in which remote participation is 
mentioned.  According to the IETF Chair, "We're getting good 
participation from our remote folks".

> > Please see draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions-00 as it discusses about
> > different types of attendees.
>
>I don't see how that is relevant.

The current discussion is about the criterion of eligibility.  Please 
see below.

>Actually, there are 10 randomly-chosen people from a pool of people
>who have been qualified from a well-defined meaning of having
>participated in the processes of the organization.  Whether that

There is "having participated" what you wrote.  However, the 
definition used in RFC 7437 is about 
attendance.  draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions-00 discusses that in 
Section 3.2.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.09140
2. 
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Workshops-and-Seminars/ict-sec-chaldc/Documents/Presentations/S6P2%20Kathleen%20Moriarty.pdf
3. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/minutes-103-ietf-201811071730-00