Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 16:30 UTC
Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 361133A181B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.004
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 WuZrOUgB7XCE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 822953A23DE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8606C5C0598; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:30:19 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=JQY5+5/RkOfzOiRYW2g7s24Pr+AVydzmItc6cdjwz JU=; b=Z/DJzxe1N841m+Fs/osRzDYpV+OuoeTsyqFDJsar1G4S4irL9Llw6BS/x NKIml51LQiXqY2VydD2MJ/cDm2ZXV9Xxys3hNG+Eq2ScuObDhvNVx/p7gw//60mn 4smWpDV20JIDL+eaw2KRVBQ6RnliS69n10cNfQ1EfO7y4BMxISAFyPr3juO+vdUs NxCUOU1HSpMhuRxTXmIOa6kYoVpvRrN3vy68dRucCj3gdwgbv/hJskGdd7ggnSoD 4bbAvH3/DJ5jEah816WhEbBznbUV5c2Fj+FvyyL7XzeS2JV+sK1he7750HhHEC/o WUGv+6N7TbMvSKJ7CL4nZLXLrXUlg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:G3CDXm5Fo_MuL2V-PfZVm33LF10KmJZw_KZPznDLXiB_VCXVFpyReg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrtddtgdeilecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekre dttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrdduhe enucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohho rhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:G3CDXgpoFVX8rFEGlNd61ISrDAbrlndzL45cVBOP531YTtZf3zHxXw> <xmx:G3CDXlFZP11AvwC9zxRjkBH-_rgvz92IYlaEDdjJGNDwMyx3UlLObQ> <xmx:G3CDXsVUUDJDjIpajYAwwgeFEtt36ohMjq6-D4MJg_3H912QgQMk7A> <xmx:G3CDXhtCYUXsFv0HSDfBQYeGYHQGz_gJqvpUKuX51jKoqRYhGK08eg>
Received: from [192.168.1.97] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CFA7C3280069; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:30:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCzMPGuunYZBCSh90ddY2kKJ_Hqnot0s1jmhNQ7qT0xkg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <b3866305-0ff7-a51a-3ee3-9527984d1c80@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:30:17 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCzMPGuunYZBCSh90ddY2kKJ_Hqnot0s1jmhNQ7qT0xkg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hrYwkX5LzMQcTioafZdbbBoujvQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:30:22 -0000
On 3/31/20 12:25 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > The IESG has discussed what the best way is to handle a decision for > eligibility for the 2020/21 NomCom, given the timeframe involved and > the discussions that are already happening. > > 1. We are concerned that a normal process for discussing a draft, > conducting a last call, and approving a BCP would take too long. > > 2. We are concerned that rushing such a process by, for example, > posting a draft now and immediately last-calling it without a normal > period of discussion would call into question the legitimacy of our > consensus process and would set a bad precedent. We also note that > have already stated that we’d like community comments by 30 April, and > we are concerned about cutting that time short in order to write such > a draft. > > 4. We believe the IESG does have — and must have — the latitude to > address exceptional situations such as this and to make exceptions to > our processes. At the same time, we appreciate and agree with > concerns about overstepping, and we agree that maintaining > accountability and appropriate checks and balances is important. > > The IESG, therefore, plans to continue collecting input and evaluating > the community’s rough consensus about the immediate NomCom-eligibility > question through 30 April, as stated. We will then post a statement > and inform the ISOC Board of Trustees, as we would do with a process > BCP. That statement will serve as the basis for eligibility to serve > on this year’s NomCom, and this year’s only; it will NOT remain in > effect beyond that brief timeframe, and will make that aspect clear. > > If rough consensus of the community is that it is important for the > IESG’s decision to be published as a BCP, we will do so, handling that > after the immediate need for a quick decision has passed and making > the publication for archival purposes. > > We also encourage the community to continue and complete the two > efforts that have been started, to formally define an exception > process, and to update NomCom eligibility requirements to account for > virtual meetings and for remote participation. > > Barry, for the IESG > After thinking a bit more about this: a) Without a definite and easily-referenced proposal, it will be much more difficult for the IESG to gauge community consensus. An email proposal really isn't sufficient because it's not very easily referenced. Also email conversations tend to shift rather quickly so that different reviewers will have different ideas about the current state of a proposal, again making community input harder to evaluate. So IMO it's necessary to have a proposal written up as an Internet-Draft and for the Last Call to reference that specific document. b) Even if IESG has "latitude" such as you describe (which I'm actually dubious about), I believe it can only have such latitude to the extent that it follows established IETF consensus procedures as closely as possible. So for instance, publishing a BCP (assuming you get consensus on it) is not optional, nor is it something that requires an additional determination of consensus, because that deviation from process is not made necessary by the current emergency. A good faith effort on IESG's part would look like publishing an I-D, like, tomorrow, and Last Calling it. It's not necessary that the proposal be perfect; it's only necessary that it put enough of a stake in the ground that the community can evaluate the proposal and IESG can make sense of the responses. If IESG sees from the feedback that slight changes are needed to win consensus, making those slight changes can be done without another Last Call as quite often happens with other IETF consensus documents. I believe that the community will support any reasonable proposal for nomcom eligibility in this one specific instance of nomcom selection, as long as that proposal is submitted expeditiously. I have, uh, less confidence that the community will support IESG making up its own rules. Keith
- NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Mary B
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Russ Housley
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Carsten Bormann
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Russ Housley
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Paul Wouters
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Eric Rescorla
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stephen Farrell
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Carsten Bormann
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 (was: Re: … John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Bob Hinden
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Paul Hoffman
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Toerless Eckert
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Vittorio Bertola
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael StJohns
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Randy Bush
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 (was: … tom petch
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Brian E Carpenter
- RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Eric Gray
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Job Snijders
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Randy Bush
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Andrew G. Malis
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 S Moonesamy
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stewart Bryant
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stewart Bryant
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 S Moonesamy
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Cullen Jennings
- AW: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 N.Leymann
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Jay Daley
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Jim Fenton
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 S Moonesamy
- Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility discus… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility di… Samuel Weiler
- Re: Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility di… Alissa Cooper
- Re: Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility di… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 tom petch
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lou Berger
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Loa Andersson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Christian Hopps
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Bob Hinden
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael StJohns
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Donald Eastlake
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Jared Mauch
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stewart Bryant
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Scott Mansfield
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Alissa Cooper
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Yoav Nir
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael StJohns
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Richard Barnes
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Robert Elz
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Joel Halpern
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Bob Hinden
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John Levine
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin