Re: Qualifying for NomCom

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 07 April 2016 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 9024312D10C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bOV6nShIWmkm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 605C612D72D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0DD17C7C76; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 23:57:21 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p7MK9h_FN18i; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 23:57:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [31.133.178.180] (dhcp-b2b4.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.178.180]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 641207C7C75; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 23:57:19 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwY0FuDp5=RMFEhUMtkK=XNDxX2dogvVY7+OSy88jrrvOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=SYpo-CiHoc07Ukb04Kb1LGV2=BPPyRLUsaqyLM9Hbwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbhYRqw7fXHzYY0=W-CpmeHeDdaZx3z2Qg0cA2aMrmVwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nqmC7NJyg2M6Na8vUj8T-qObO-1gHFEXZzrobb3oOQhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZHGa5OvSmZ=bTd6AWchsm4r=QaJn2nPqD+YjeWPmH9pA@mail.gmail.com> <24691.1460062367@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <5706CC94.3080804@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYvCpL9wwHL0E33HRbMvcckpad=gV-VYgAomJpCdiSrpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <5706D7BC.8020800@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 23:57:16 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYvCpL9wwHL0E33HRbMvcckpad=gV-VYgAomJpCdiSrpg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060608070309060009040004"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_Gnjg9jMKr0_hQiVH7CPT8wXLB4>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 07 Apr 2016 21:57:33 -0000

On 04/07/2016 11:21 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> How's this look for starters?
>
> http://blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-nomcom-procexp.txt
> <http://blackops.org/%7Emsk/draft-kucherawy-nomcom-procexp.txt>
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 08/04/2016 08:52, Michael Richardson wrote:
>     ...
>     >     > On the other hand, I realize now that previous thread went on longer
>     >     > than I remembered, and there was a proposal that we (I,
>     probably)
>     >     > construct an RFC3933-style process experiment and let that
>     run for a
>     >     > while. If it works well, we can codify it by adding it to
>     RFC7437bis.
>     >     > So I'll do that. If anyone wants to volunteer to
>     collaborate on it,
>     >     > please contact me directly.
>     >
>     > Yes, let's do that!
>     >
>     > It would awesome if we could say definitely that the new rules
>     > contribute to more volunteers before we actually use them.
>
>     That's not quite how RFC3933 works. You'd *actually* run the
>     experimental
>     procedure for (say) one cycle, with automatic reversion to RFC7437
>     unless
>     RFC7437bis was approved. I think it's a good idea. A one-year
>     experiment
>     affects ~half the IESG and IAB seats so is highly unlikely to lead to
>     disaster.
>

Two suggestions:

- Scope objections and aborts to the time between the announcement of
the final list of volunteers and the selection of the comittee. This
closes the loophole that the powers-that-be can look at the selected
nomcom, say "we don't like this group", and force a re-selection by
spuriously objecting.

- The timing says "This experiment is defined to last for one year,
starting and ending with the constitution of the next NomCom after this
document is approved and published." - this is neither determinate nor
grammatical, I think - in particular, it starts and ends at the same time.

I suggest "This experiment is defined to start with the first call for
volunteers after IESG approval of this document, and ends with the
selection of the nomcom from that volunteer pool. Evaluation of the
experiment will be done after the selection process of the formed nomcom
completes."

Otherwise - go for it!


>
>        Brian
>
>


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.