Re: Registration/volunteer gap

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 11 August 2022 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 C9195C14CF01 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=gmail.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 eCnWhdI-ScPv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x435.google.com (mail-wr1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1947FC14F744 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x435.google.com with SMTP id j1so22324024wrw.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=WSrKetq6T9o8LSYhB1WdXcrkmKBwG9R5iSV8z5cdqCo=; b=kDiGpRLRQxQNvD0COTxMLM4R+jQ8zEnZRgK8UUPwCVh+1CULbv6nCrgyuSLN1gHBEy vk9cCJ3/v3SOOx4psxQB9yD1kWnDMw+MN57tkoLajKePrwE+SrGjJS6V0+4caerympmt 5eTI+Ybeom6+iqilPly4Ug/W7QRfeuOgB2MZJtDY3rGtXt5yHL/7BdXUmeRKMJz47+KR LlRomgLEb/Jsg50K7t+Foxc7PQRIdQZ6Gso5xSHOPSxAV5NKg7tEdPTAjbq5y6v6V6bp oJPzSSQb7XXj2pfvyKNjrkRbSqFKySuZk017QOtC5LBOXoEKmhC/2XVC40O53WVf8Y0O bVug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=WSrKetq6T9o8LSYhB1WdXcrkmKBwG9R5iSV8z5cdqCo=; b=IL2YMWNLw2fdszFrf9FD+pj4Nwj6aSt7zdtg+jVnEjGHjMnbWLAgJNWfclEQcsip/+ Vx8qFAS2Pl5pNIA6Nx1Yh1JS68Tv8OVB5NnYdTbISNR8TyqYYxvG72Bty6NAhXVoxc+F tOF5SqcyU8AoRW9cxTl9uRwnY6jvFhrGvBiQeDcdyVcZ/2LLh4OYtNz26fb2Xn2+JpE4 pmapyJ7VE2qzutx7qLtu+IzSGFJ0owAYNNBxPrCDn9BXDVspD12Cj/m88SnIMVTeA0D3 NH2u0p8jNbBCzYNOq81QViUkxZToxLlgKB8Eub32Da8CDcNvL41o+AAsk3GHRKddymSX DKDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3Ls+80mJwN+4T6GqvX3A7ew6RIe+pZDp/TEm8LRlxl70U2tIIL NWvetVim+B6SXJsNwrdrf9mDLa2EM6HwPg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6iteadl6V3jGcT7f7bskHJU1wW8OScC8ocpp7NPxdJZKggHkglEPRSNUJslSGJJjzh1is9Zw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1849:b0:222:c091:9c6c with SMTP id c9-20020a056000184900b00222c0919c6cmr181522wri.594.1660243442520; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2a00:23c5:33a1:2101:d5ab:109a:be30:5c3f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s24-20020a1cf218000000b003a55e5d0d54sm8799049wmc.36.2022.08.11.11.44.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
Subject: Re: Registration/volunteer gap
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5CC8F19E-7FBA-4E54-9525-529526DB6BB3@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 19:43:58 +0100
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <068F803C-88F7-4077-B00D-331F51B0232D@gmail.com>
References: <166023764844.23915.12456766206233372186@ietfa.amsl.com> <2C302BC8C1C92C910281F332@PSB> <a1e40cca-5abc-ebb7-56f4-b233ffdd9f79@comcast.net> <5CC8F19E-7FBA-4E54-9525-529526DB6BB3@akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yINo5JLmJnILCzHKVHhr1ibIPSc>
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 18:44:07 -0000

I wonder if we should not have a specialist group that run the selection process on behalf of the chair so that the new chair does not need to learn the details.

As the process is fully open, and can be overseen by the chair I see no democratic risk.

Once the selection is made the specialist withdraw for 12 months.

The “team" could be volunteers, staff or a lawyer.

Stewart



> On 11 Aug 2022, at 19:01, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>>   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
> 
>