IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Registration/volunteer gap

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Thu, 11 August 2022 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590D4C157B45 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.386
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.582, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62N5tacZA83b for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E49CC157B43 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122330.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 27BFC3vq019154; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 19:01:04 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=qura0jvgYOCZ6EdLMFeEy7nxnQTbvQijwdfurAWWDLM=; b=c+vOS3ysWdpTZ0FHLxrldQ3T5fn8JOyjbCK/LsYMVxurNGAct2pt1/Y+xOznuyOFJ4TP 3mM6BJDVOPa7AFTQmN8sTMo2nqU6p2BrJJ/RadCpvU9Rf9NEJNMZ97Jr0B0on6UbDNGF Tw/vH2fg+f9XWmtxk8HOHwZCUBWX0mfw5oR4dYydQPzXzb17l0Da0tlEHbA0tcwAjYV0 H9OCf1yG95qJtb39kXcRh3FdTdls9hWSOgcVCgnJKcOkXhOmxUq1wlSss9MpHtR1xaJb cD34QYIsjgjngsXas6R356k/8Xm7PJXiZ2sqhRY9+SqHnvaoVVbyYJBvNM/P4EqsMm8q YA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint3 (a72-247-45-31.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.31] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3hvmat5suh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Aug 2022 19:01:04 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 27BFjt8l030797; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 14:01:03 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.207]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3hw4pkrjkg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Aug 2022 14:01:03 -0400
Received: from ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.50.203) by ustx2ex-dag4mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.50.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.9; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:01:03 -0700
Received: from ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.203]) by ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.203]) with mapi id 15.02.1118.009; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:01:03 -0700
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Registration/volunteer gap
Thread-Topic: Registration/volunteer gap
Thread-Index: AQHYraUFRV3h9x23Lk6RcxBj/NMi262qZyUAgAADWAD//8UlgA==
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:01:03 +0000
Message-ID: <5CC8F19E-7FBA-4E54-9525-529526DB6BB3@akamai.com>
References: <166023764844.23915.12456766206233372186@ietfa.amsl.com> <2C302BC8C1C92C910281F332@PSB> <a1e40cca-5abc-ebb7-56f4-b233ffdd9f79@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <a1e40cca-5abc-ebb7-56f4-b233ffdd9f79@comcast.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.61.22050700
x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3AAF996F1FC60842B61AD914CD541894@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.883,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-08-11_11,2022-08-11_01,2022-06-22_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=472 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2207270000 definitions=main-2208110057
X-Proofpoint-GUID: McuGrazND2nWT8V0VPZDXCGIbwC1CBTy
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: McuGrazND2nWT8V0VPZDXCGIbwC1CBTy
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.883,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-08-11_11,2022-08-11_01,2022-06-22_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=437 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2207270000 definitions=main-2208110058
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Md9-EH5FnC3Y5C2jjA2WEJtBMAA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:01:12 -0000

>    I think it's actually simpler than that.  If any of those 7 objected to 
    their exclusion, then I think we'd probably have to rerun the process.  
    It's not so much demographics as it is fairness.

At this point, I believe that https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8713.html#name-announcement-of-selection-r is the first step. Someone has to send me an email saying that they challenge all the nominees because the volunteer pool was wrong. I have 48 hours to reply. I promise to reply "I disagree" as soon as I see the mail so that if they wish to escalate, per https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8713.html#name-dispute-resolution-process as soon as possible to avoid further delays.

>    ps - we've had problems with the selection process the last 3(?) times.  

It would be good to have a single unified listing of what those problems were.  If you want to post them, great, or email me and I will add it to my "nomcom diary." This thread is an attempt to identify one such problem, and explain that it is being addressed.

>  In particular, the 
    current model allows for "Hmm... if I refuse to serve then X is next on 
    the list and they would mostly vote like me" types of calculation on the 
    part of selectees.

That's different from a mistake. You are describing someone gaming the system, and this was an operational mistake. I think it is important to keep the two separate as the latter is more easily addressed while the former would probably require a new RFC.

-Rich Salz, 2022 NomCom chair

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email