Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

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

FWIW, I agree with Brian about the clarity of BCP 10 and this
not being a situation in which we can say "Do the Right Thing",
wave our hands a bit, and move on.

I have one additional concern that I think needs to be part of
this discussion.   Whether one believes that IETF 108 will
occur, on schedule, f2f and with "normal" levels of attendance
in Madrid (and similarly for IETF 109 in Bangkok), I hope we can
agree that the likelihood of either meeting being virtual and/or
low attendance is above zero.   In addition to making it clear
who is eligible to volunteer for the nomcom, we need to figure
out what guidance we should give people as to whether or not
they should volunteer.   During the plenary discussions and on
the mailing list earlier, I think I heard the current nomcom
chair say things than I interpret as a belief that running a
nomcom entirely virtually would be fairly easy.  I think I've
heard others, including some previous nomcom chairs and members,
suggest that it would be difficult and might create some
complicated biases.  So, assume I were an IETF participant who
would be eligible under any of the formulas now being considered
(for the record, I'm not under any of them).  Assume, too, that
I work for a company whose travel policies are subject to
change, that have changed in the last month or three, and whose
policies three or seven months from now are not reliably
predictable.  Whether it is plausible or ethical for me to
volunteer for the nomcom depends, not only on whether I'm
eligible but on whether I have a reasonable expectation that, if
either everyone is virtual or I'm remote from IETF 108 and/or
109 the nomcom chair and other nomcom members will be willing
and able to accommodate that and work efficiently.  

I think the issues that go into that reasonable expectation had
best be resolved on the same schedule as the eligibility issue.
They might even influence Andrew and his appointment of a Nomcom
chair because, like it or not, a Chair who is experienced and
comfortable operating a process similar to the Nomcom with
either a mix of f2f and several remote participants or everyone
remote would considerably increase the chances for a process
that runs smoothly and a volunteer pool that reflects the
collection of effective IETF participants as much as reasonably
possible.

thanks,
    john




--On Thursday, March 26, 2020 16:10 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 26-Mar-20 12:54, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> Err on the side of including people. Discount 107 for
>> everyone.  BUT include it for those who signed bluesheets on
>> more than one day.
> 
> I think that actually amounts to varying the rule to 3/6, i.e.
> 102-107 would all be considered.
> 
> I certainly consider this worth discussing, although I don't
> see why you say "bluesheets on more than one day" rather than
> "more than one bluesheet." With such a reduced agenda, it
> could easily happen that a person only considered one day of
> interest. (Especially with many people having to deal with the
> domestic chaos of a lockdown. I heard dogs and I heard kids
> during today's sessions.)
> 
> However, I'm concerned about the implications of potentially
> contravening BCP10. It's a process BCP and we build a chain of
> authority for those by having the ISOC Board take note of
> them. And BCP10 is unambiguous in stating: (a) That various
> things happen related to the First IETF each year. (b) That
> eligibility requires 3/5 attendance at the moment of NomCom
> selection, which normally means that the 5th of the 5
> qualifying meetings is the First IETF of the year.
> 
> Because of (a), it seems to me that the IESG needs to formally
> assert that this week *is* the First IETF of 2020, and ask the
> ISOC Board to take note.
> 
> If you then want to make virtual attendance this week qualify,
> the IESG would also need to assert the ad hoc definition of
> attendance, and also ask the ISOC Board to take note.
> 
> If you wanted to include 102 in the qualifying meetings, the
> same applies, IMHO.
> 
> I'm not sure which approach is best, but I am sure about it
> needing a formal statement from the IESG which the ISOC Board
> is informed about.
> 
> (And before anyone asks, I do mean the ISOC Board. IETF LLC is
> not in this particular loop, since it concerns the IETF
> process, not its administration.)
> 
> Regards
>     Brian
>