IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Eligibility-discuss] my conclusions from additional data Robert and Stephen dug up

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 29 June 2020 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@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 E08003A0C4F for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 af3oiDZDS0xD for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (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 0A4283A0C50 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id s1so19420133ljo.0 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7V1rsJMHjVnckBu3/uoEgV7ZlLAm2D845p5ENJuh23M=; b=LDR118S1a1EOYUxs2ukItx071TatIsZCRFIwIiZAkKk8hxfAplJVgWDVhsqnz3k+Ye VfvbM1CNyuGihPZ6n5HkAljbaW/SX3PwYW1rfH3qIeQa38AwOY0+ztfs4kSyl96gYK+I m48R6DsV8CMjd1xwNGdJJy+a4LrivhbGJp+JHIas+CQ1Vv4FazZKBd7BTjm6RC4nGYju 8W+LLhA/qX+7l9KEz6v4k67TrLIvnXRcUwnMhKYzhYkMNPOYTIMY0BJYG5FuhNusVOzi 1QRTwQG5n291TUMHg8edgc3fx//6aqnByq5ViO7+4ZlAVPvHoO606m7qQhtrk2OgiWKc xERA==
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:cc; bh=7V1rsJMHjVnckBu3/uoEgV7ZlLAm2D845p5ENJuh23M=; b=jBOCUp+rQNtH0N7i5XNyb7psFnIA24ofNEP4QKZqbq/Ub5tKdp8pxrhzBp+eptZebW pJxzJI8Ek/uT8vH8kfxeO4C/tpudAiPuITGwZgCoeRzEhC/GoK8Kd7t4b7Y/xV0lipcv 9IzUrVonXt2IHCgUlH3xnhs1bBDSSplH8RARkcnhBfgg9D7fCNS5j5/TNSpSrgMRtB0v eoAasdle5wgh/4ftOzng4ilnQpr7FdBhy5w7gcsrM0AecpmtTmc7S1oZWAx9QYnd+Yjc gNbFLfXkZsBUURV/gouy/TDqRV9PhCScJDzDE7lwcj7yxIq43tpcjwe+jm2vK7gPBb3F fehg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532b03e4IWdhGPAHfhWZwN6/Ps1bUhP54Zhu2uBWChBNS6lZKKpK F4XHDT8EdhOOWlTSTs7bnTiWRue+W+FW9lemNZs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQBO6sJj1AV5q1bD7CJuVec+t8AqJOd2oUjLMpFyTXbiWAi5aLamg8I403rJEIGvecw7N7Tb+jUjIBYecrzFU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:81d7:: with SMTP id s23mr7874259ljg.398.1593457146006; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158922260750.16578.5537937651678030606@ietfa.amsl.com> <7e9ab37b-b3ca-e27d-519f-c4ef262013e3@gmail.com> <b3298c92-1776-24df-a202-8d85659af547@gmail.com> <08197c74-0f01-041a-5a91-e3bd89912988@gmail.com> <166e84e5-f261-5e29-de30-0dae7bc43ab4@cs.tcd.ie> <63CD8C7A-D1FF-472A-BF0C-8EBF309CA445@cooperw.in> <63e18095-53ab-5912-87d6-ba7937b556b1@nostrum.com> <2F9D36F6-DD47-4A53-91CE-EEEE8D217D63@cooperw.in> <f63f42a3-cb56-3c4a-7c78-7b8490853f3f@gmail.com> <c541c727-3abb-2f7e-d312-3c03437f36b1@nostrum.com> <c6be21d5-54c9-c591-6202-f4f2a927ecdd@gmail.com> <ef491f53-d3c4-34fd-d591-c5f6e74c9297@nostrum.com> <e228a8c1-4256-e28e-200e-1fa58ba4dafc@cs.tcd.ie> <31fe0e5b-0416-5e40-d597-32541333934e@nostrum.com> <88928e17-b9f9-b53a-ac30-4cdc6ce225c4@cs.tcd.ie> <d7fefbfd-4876-4914-dc99-d6217b8d6f6c@gmail.com> <00c7351c-ddc8-0446-0e31-d0f8238d60ef@nostrum.com> <29608.1593220227@localhost> <e53c68f5-9d2f-8bb2-e276-aec553a8d792@gmail.com> <9569.1593366443@localhost> <4a3817be-6ca3-a3c9-e94e-053f33ed4556@gmail.com> <7049.1593390234@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <7049.1593390234@localhost>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 13:58:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fU6=5vo6cdKeLKzKPtu9N9hK30yDRM5NtbgR1japRUng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027136e05a93da778"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/vwiFGwrfXgrHHpOiwPpTebr9XYE>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] my conclusions from additional data Robert and Stephen dug up
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, 29 Jun 2020 18:59:20 -0000

One minor point of snark ...

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 7:24 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>     >> I think that these numbers show that we don't really have to think
> about this
>     >> too hard.  We can go without this criteria and do well.
>
>     > Possibly. One additional data point is how this year's qualified
> volunteer
>     > list looks. So far there are 160 names of which 25 are marked (107),
> in
>     > the unverified list. Of course there is no way we can regard IETF 107
>     > attendance as in any way normal, but it suggests that adding remote
>     > attendance is not an immediate must-have.
>
> My understanding is that they won't be qualified unless we count 107
> attendance, is that right?  They couldn't qualify on 3-of-5 for
> 106,105,104,103,102?
> I was actually rather surprised at who was listed.
> Not names I would have expected to have their eligibility imperiled.
>
> So to repeat, rule (5) as is, is very good.
> I would expend it to include WG *draft* authors, rather than just RFCs.
>

After a quick look at https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C238, and at (one
cluster-238 document I'm familiar with),
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos/, it's worth
noting that we have approved WG drafts that sit in the RFC Editor queue for
multiple years,

Since I'm subscribed to the C238 mailing list (because there are so many
inter-draft connections, they have their own mailing list), I'm imagining
that a bunch of people who worked on the early versions of these drafts
aren't active in the IETF today. The time to count them was (for the draft
I named) starting in 2014, at WG adoption time, not 2020 when the RFC is
likely to pop out.

So I'd definitely say "WG *draft* authors", and I'm not sure what we would
get by adding "and RFCs" (but I'm willing to learn).

Best,

Spencer


> I suspect that actually the impact may be smaller than we might think, but
> I
> think it just makes sense.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email