Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Barry,

First, I intend to participate if at all possible.  UTC-4 unless
this drags too far into the year.  And, yes, I have strong
opinions (probably in evidence below) and would rather express
them than try to pretend impartiality.

I think it can mostly be addressed in the Doodle Poll, but note
that there are some events just outside the likely four-week
notice window that will either block block participation or
alter time zones for some of us.  One is the World Internet
Conference (WIC) / Wuzhen Summit 20-22 October with associated
pre-meeting and post-meeting events and travel time.  

While I think it would be reasonable to address this in more
depth at the virtual meeting or in different threads on this
list, I see the question of whether there is a problem to be
solved in terms of whether behaviors among the leadership that
would differentially harm or otherwise disadvantage remote
participants (or persistent failure to address and remedy such
behaviors) are possible.   If they are (personally, I believe
that is close to obvious and have even experienced small
versions of such behaviors), then there is a question of whether
forcing remote participants to plead with frequent f2f meeting
attendees for support is consistent with fairness in an
organization that is supported to depend on consensus that
reflects all active and contributing participants.

Thought about that way, even the analogy to US residents and
voters (or residents of any other country or jurisdiction who
are not allowed to choose their leadership) breaks down.  It
might be reasonable if both populations are treated with equal
fairness and respect but, if not, there are issues even if the
"who votes" issue is not deemed appropriate for a solution.  For
example, if a non-citizen (non-voting) resident were attached on
the streets, I think most of us would assume that ethical
behavior would suggest that they have access to law enforcement
and other remedies rather than being treated as sub-humans whom
it is reasonable and appropriate to attack or have attacked. 

Finally, if we are expanding scope, at least in initial
discussions, beyond SM's rather narrow initial suggestion (and I
agree that we should) an announcement to the IETF and/or
IETF-announce lists is probably in order.

best,
    john


--On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 09:34 -0700 Barry Leiba
<[e-mail]> 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.
>....