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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

At 17:22 26-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
>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

I think that the discussion belongs on the IETF discussion list.

>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

Yes.

>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.

Yes.

>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.

We can rationalize why we have no choice other than to disenfranchise 
some participants or we can do something meaningful.  When there 
isn't meaningful participation people get frustrated, people get 
angry, people walk away.  None of those, in my opinion, make the IETF 
process better; what happens is the contrary.  It is very difficult 
to reach agreement when people believe that they are being treated unfairly.

>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".

The discussion has been about "this is how we do things" instead of 
taking an open-minded approach where we question whether it is really 
necessary to do things that way.  Please note that I am not inferring 
that the people on this list are not open-minded.  What I mean is to 
take an external view and try to put in less effort to achieve the 
same or better results.

>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.

The IAB Chair and IETF Chair once stated that:

   "We believe there is little doubt that, by any measure, IETF satisfies
    the requirements for openness, due process, an appeals process and
    consensus"

Due process is a fundamental principle of fairness.  The IETF can set 
up barriers to leave less room for appeals and recall petitions or it 
can look at it as a principle of fairness where an aggrieved party 
has a recourse if the party would like a decision to be reconsidered.

>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.

I note that the current process also disenfranchises people who have 
been attending IETF meetings since a long time.

>There are a lot of very smart people in this community.  Let's

I strongly agree.

>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.

It is not constructive to discuss about diversity if IAB and IESG 
members are not willing to ensure that participants are given the 
means to contribute to the maximum extent possible.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy