Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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

--On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 08:32 +0100 Barry Leiba
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks, John, for adding to the discussion.  One thing:
> 
>> > — Section 4.14 —
>> > 
>> >    Members of the IETF community must have attended at least
>> > three of    the last five IETF meetings in order to
>> > volunteer.
>> > 
>> > I hesitate to say this, given other ongoing discussions, but
>> > "attended at least three of the last five IETF meetings in
>> > person in order to volunteer" has to be clear here,
>> > especially as we now have formal registration for remote
>> > participants.
>> 
>> (2) The hesitation is, IMO, appropriate.  Changes and
>> clarifications to the procedures that are unrelated to IASA
>> 2.0, especially substantive ones (which that is) are either
>> out of scope or they are not.   If they are not in scope,
>> then the IESG making a change that the WG was not allowed to
>> make seems highly inappropriate.
> 
> I don't think what I'm suggesting is a change, but a
> clarification. The intent of the current three-of-five policy
> is in-person attendance, and there was no need to say that
> when that was the only way to attend.  While I fully think
> that we should change that and include remote participants for
> eligibility, this document is addressing the current rules,
> which don't include them.
> 
> I strongly hope that we change that soon.  But I do think it's
> important to get this document out there now, to finish the
> necessary IASA2 documentation.

No disagreement about that, and I think the document is ok to go
with the "IASA 2.0 only" text that I suggested included.
However, while things have clearly gotten better, easier, and
more effective, we've had remote participation (originally via
IP Multicast if you remember that) very nearly forever (at least
in Internet years).  Speaking personally, I participated
remotely in IETF 91 and 92, which span the time that 7347 was in
the publication queue.  So let's get the document out without
changes or clarifications that aren't strictly within the "fix
for IANA" scope with the understanding that, if it is a problem
now, it was a problem in early 2015 as well and does not need
extraordinary treatment.

   john