Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

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

Folks, I think much of the discussion of this proposal misses
the point, or at least the point as I see it.  It is easy to say
"won't work" or to complain about details.   I'm not even sure
the discussion belongs on the Nomcom list.   I think we should
move up a level and consider two things.  First, the IETF has
been repeating for years, in part as one of our reasons for
claiming superiority to other SDOs who want to operate in the
Internet space, that one can fully participate in the work of
the IETF without coming to meetings.   I hope we still mean
that.  If we don't, it may be time to revise what we say about
ourselves.  Second, in recent months, we've had extensive
discussions about diversity in IETF participation.  Some people
believe that we have a big problem, others believe that we have
no problem at all, and many people lie somewhere in between, but
there seems to be general agreement that, in principle, at least
a reasonable level of diversity is A Good Thing.  After many
discussions with current and would-be participants in many parts
of the world outside North America, Western Europe, and a small
cluster of Japanese and Chinese companies and organizations, I
believe that, if we want diversity (and diversity is not just a
code phrase for "women from North America and Western Europe")
then we had better get used to people who frequently participate
remotely.  

If those claims and assumptions are true, then the real issue
isn't the details of Subramanian's I-D  (that I-D, IMO, is not
much
more flawed than many first-version I-Ds) but how much we can
open up the IETF process to meaningful participation by people
who mostly participate remotely or whether we have no choice
other than to disenfranchise them in important ways.

In that light, "organizational component XYZ frequently meets
face to face, therefore no one can be involved there until they
attend most meetings face to face" is far less interesting
than an examination of whether that particular amount of face
time is really essential to the tasks of that component.  In
some cases -- for example, I believe the IESG is one of them--
the answer will be "yes".  In others, the answer may be "well,
some of that is necessary, but we ought to be able to reduce the
number and/or the fraction of the group that needs to be
present".  

Similarly, our tying eligibility to sign a recall petition to
Nomcom eligibility was a matter of convenience at the time, but
unless there are good reasons why a mostly-remote participate
cannot be as injured or aggrieved as one who attends meetings
more regularly, maybe requiring that all 20 of those who are
required to endorse a recall petition is unnecessary and,
indeed, unfair.  I note in that regard that we do not impose an
attendance requirement on the filing of appeals: if some of the
hyperbole of the last few days about the importance of meeting
attendance were taken to its logical conclusion, we would impose
precisely such a restriction (pragmatically, that would have
saved us several nuisance appeals over the years, but I hope we
all agree that fairness is more important).  I don't know if the
recall procedure needs adjustment or if the right adjustment is
dialing back the minimum qualifications for endorsing a recall
petition or adjusting the number of people who must satisfy the
current requirements and allowing some number of virtual
signatures under some other requirement, but I think the
question deserves consideration.

Finally, I think we should recognize, as some people have noted,
that "3 meetings our of 5" is a lousy surrogate for "understands
the IETF culture and how the IETF works".  Many of us have
observed that some people "get it" without attending a single
meeting, some after one meeting, and that, for some, three (or
even five) consecutive meetings is not nearly sufficient.  Maybe
that surrogate measurement has been good enough in the past, but
consider what would happen if, say, Phill Gross took an active
interest in a WG or two, participated remotely, and maybe
attended a meeting or two.  We might plausibly decide that we
didn't want him on the Nomcom but I doubt that anyone could
claim with a straight face that the fact that he hadn't attended
three of the last five meetings meant that he didn't understand
how the IETF worked.  The same thing could be said about other,
more recent, "dropouts" from regular attendance -- Mike O'Dell,
Frank Kastenholz, Joyce Reynolds, Jeff Schiller, April Marine,
John Crowcroft, Craig Partridge, and a few others come
immediately to mind.

There are a lot of very smart people in this community.  Let's
try to think about how to adjust the rules and processes to make
full involvement by people who don't attend many IETF meetings
but who understand the community and really do participate
possible.  If we aren't willing to do that, probably we should
stop wasting time discussing diversity and inclusion of
additional communities.   Or perhaps we should wait for an
appeal of either BCP 10 or some Nomcom result on the grounds
that, given our statements about non-meeting participation, the
selection rules are manifestly unfair to significant portions of
the community.  Personally, I'd rather than we think creatively
about the situation and get on top of things first.

best,
   john