[Eligibility-discuss] Review of draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 26 October 2020 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 6388D3A0E4F for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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 eMpoY91ENX8O for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-f54.google.com (mail-ua1-f54.google.com [209.85.222.54]) (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 DF0C33A0E6F for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 91so1897970uar.5 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:33:35 -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:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gPnhrL9tzUpBV001Orw3KiD3AwfkivSPghTPNP8CfaA=; b=CipkD4KxDq0TGsQmZqMuP+C2yFNeaCwdocangraJgkrhwsm7NLYgLZpCgMAqLZEbrI 8khSdaceNTc8s58GCK6NN5LDW5Hh4xz/RhN/BHXBSYeIH1OQvRD0vhRrGjzSPpQVwbFv 9/Sp9+JXNuXPnfBMJwJC8zwL6iiU1KuClZ/0sX7d+0rI62AZffcsc7dNdU7/6IJa0bji Clm4XwkSc3qp8+tNUugCxepZcR0nYUQ06XwXX2abtRy586RGRGSe83WrZHLMJom59PI4 8pjCs/AWdTym8zsSiGwUHQiWGRjag6KR4Rb1DHeNBUPFqjJVX0ZcPIhJn1SU45an9rjk NWcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533smkcG+LIyV2ZK1FeMy/UpWoG6ZFzor11LHr7WY6Vb0MOVIHfi yYCfBNonhvHMMkSu/tziYyFQRGUAC7yRrcf/2o7G6W/lCpgsFw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwu82PV31+6zSssYwC+mEQ4fZqFLrhGnewzftlQ6MDex0rbIf2K54fwj5BxAtmftMAfpJZF4yt/bEPwDCNWsMU=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:77d8:: with SMTP id y24mr21011092uar.72.1603740814013; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:33:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+pWd7CCq5j7GLUxF-VOwAm4tx3OthE_gU9pUaMous7=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/kI25Pa07bbbUoczdXFGmLqcMINU>
Subject: [Eligibility-discuss] Review of draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06
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: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:33:42 -0000

Hi, Brian, and all,

I have some comments on the draft -- some editorial, and one
substantive that I have no solution for, so it's likely to be moot:

— Section 1 —

   Also according to [RFC8713], the qualification for signing a
   community petition for the recall of certain IETF office-holders is
   that same as for the Nominating Committee.  This document does not
   change that.

The last sentence could be misunderstood to mean that recall
eligibility remains tied to 8713, not to this document’s experiment.
I suggest rewording to make it explicitly clear, perhaps as:

NEW
   Also according to [RFC8713], the qualification for signing a
   community petition for the recall of certain IETF office-holders is
   that same as for the Nominating Committee.  This experiment retains
   that connection, and therefore applies to the recall process as well
   as to the Nominating Committee process.
END

— Section 3 —
The last list item is not parallel in construction to the others, each
of which starts with a verb; I suggest making it parallel:

NEW
   *  Provide algorithmic criteria, so that the Secretariat can check
      them mechanically against available data.
END

— Section 4 —

   *  Path 2: Has been a WG Chair or Secretary within the last 3 years.

I suggest spelling out “Working Group” here and in Section 5
(“Working-Group-adopted”).

   *  Path 3: Has been a listed author of at least 2 IETF stream RFCs
      within the last 5 years.  An Internet-Draft that has been approved
      by the IESG and is in the RFC Editor queue counts.

I find this troubling for a few reasons, though I’ll say up front that
I don’t have a suitable alternative that meets the “algorithmis” goal.

1. While I understand the reason, as stated in the notes, for making
this 5 years, it seems odd that someone whose name got on a draft 5
years ago becomes NomCom-eligible, while someone who was the working
group chair at the time but stepped down a year later does not.

2. This makes is important to wheedle one’s way into the author lists
of documents, and I hesitate to make that an attractive goal.

3. It’s often the case that people listed in a Contributors section
have been more active participants (and had more to do with shaping
the document) than some of those listed on the front page.

4. If we do a -bis of an RFC from 10 or 15 years ago, we will often
keep the original authors listed and add the -bis document’s editor.
This will have the unwanted effect of suddently making people who
haven’t been around the IETF in more than a decade NomCom-eligible.

As I said, though, I have no good alternative, and I’m not opposed to
trying it as an experiment.  I also think it’s unlikely that someone
enabled by my point 4 is likely to try volunteering.  I’m more
concerned about my points 1 and 3.

I’m also concerned, as Victor Kuarsingh is, that this is an unusual
sort of experiment in that “running it for a year” really means
“running a single instance of it.”  Again, I don’t know that there’s
anything we can do about that, but I worry that we simply will get
little or no data on the real effect of making this change — we can
only measure what it does to the volunteer pool, but not what effect
it has on the NomCom process or result.

-- 
Barry