From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jun 25 15:29:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC6511E816B for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:29:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CFaQJ8NhbaGL for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8951E11E8162 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.129.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5PMTR91029013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:29:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372199378; bh=avrg1FzCg89fKsyWRWE4S0NtJYLt0FBHszv79jfKsAw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=t2Cawf1Mie1GB0n1Hv804edeF/tVqRaDPwy4SZbD/RAujx3OBr/GTyYMcCyzKo9aE 13MRhFA4EkkYB0WMCFFBHCk7XEZ5wKwWhqyCHBFDWYeB4HsgKBuKEvS9hXp6bTnYqf k2OgFmpCfQgaX8whI+w8yj1BYMXiIHLQ9dZeKyp4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372199378; i=@elandsys.com; bh=avrg1FzCg89fKsyWRWE4S0NtJYLt0FBHszv79jfKsAw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=0dxE4ZZy2I+sOk4ecL8S5rNZWPRDfyJz11zwn4eIwQZ3nokagocGEr0lG+dPUQ6ij JtRC96V15NQ6cDdGSiIjxb020mRffSEflZae8AA7t/kjtWtahFVbjW0Giuhlp5w+O0 cb5O0bVgD9PfPEnn1R07U0cRCPh/r9aMuygs0QTc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:29:07 -0700 To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org From: S Moonesamy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:29:41 -0000 Hello, RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled. draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to allow remote contributors to the IETF Standards Process to be eligible to serve on NomCom and sign a Recall petition ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 ). I would appreciate if you could read the draft and comment. Regards, S. Moonesamy From joel@stevecrocker.com Tue Jun 25 15:32:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7131121F94DF for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:32:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SwATorW1Hnh8 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5037E21E80BE for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dummy.name; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:32:10 +0000 Message-ID: <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:31:48 -0400 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:32:15 -0000 What does it mean to "attend ... IETF meetings remotely ..." Yours, Joel On 6/25/2013 6:29 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hello, > > RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet > Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF > Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled. > > draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to allow > remote contributors to the IETF Standards Process to be eligible to > serve on NomCom and sign a Recall petition ( > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 ). > > I would appreciate if you could read the draft and comment. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jun 25 15:41:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BFE21F9942 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:41:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8zemAJcw4eli for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:41:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2C821F9C3D for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.129.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5PMeikl012252 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:40:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372200059; bh=iLAjKI85DYeiMIRxihN45lt6WLqTHk2WWTwdZnLk6rs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Q+tDlFRk+pbkYP+P3YWz6UaizMmHfoGj4rWnRB7iIJzphdPURCw3RzNuZmXAIaj4s LcsuAO2nyttoBH4BZ96sFAb3mTZccaqhVDVd852MKkQUCSpa3z9xuG2xfc3cKamKh+ wFcd5hxAFBGSoKWk583aT/dw6MFXBMGtQBDemOX0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372200059; i=@elandsys.com; bh=iLAjKI85DYeiMIRxihN45lt6WLqTHk2WWTwdZnLk6rs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=OT2BntXCXq/W6QWd32kgCCHQ07cSYHn12ZTObsdkD47j4vhqE4QI1ZfIfOkXgmq8Q /DXXC2k7nawZmC/Y/jIRwbGZU3ilD3/6Wjg1HpDGchuE/px+K6I4EyZ6j3t2NvwLtm dyoSglrj3D5DUhjcdZMev3iBxUT1GCrET365CBMQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:37:35 -0700 To: Joel From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:41:02 -0000 Hi Joel, At 15:31 25-06-2013, Joel wrote: >What does it mean to "attend ... IETF meetings remotely ..." The IETF allows for remote participation at meetings ( http://www.ietf.org/meeting/remote-participation.html ). It is another way to contribute the IETF without being physically present at the meeting venue. Regards, S. Moonesamy From housley@vigilsec.com Tue Jun 25 15:50:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF11C11E8179 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:50:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lyj5R-dNMLYS for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D9021E80B8 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9848FF24078; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:50:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E1+Flvs7FuYL; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.109] (pool-96-241-156-29.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.156.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07ABF24070; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:50:26 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:50:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2E498072-E769-4D11-9797-6F47B0D9EF3C@vigilsec.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> To: S Moonesamy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:50:25 -0000 SM: >> What does it mean to "attend ... IETF meetings remotely ..." >=20 > The IETF allows for remote participation at meetings ( = http://www.ietf.org/meeting/remote-participation.html ). It is another = way to contribute the IETF without being physically present at the = meeting venue. Please take a look at the IESG statement: = http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/nomcom-eligibility-and-day-passes.html If participating for a full day in an IETF meeting is not sufficient, = then I think that hard-to-quantify participation via the the remote = participation tools is even less desirable as a qualification. I think = that meeting participation, especially the hard to measure things like = hallway conversations, are important to learning the IETF culture. I = think we want the people that are picking our leaders to understand that = culture. Russ From joel@stevecrocker.com Tue Jun 25 15:50:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A12A21F9A3E for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:50:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id amB7VYZ2YVv6 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFC711E8177 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dummy.name; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:50:35 +0000 Message-ID: <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:50:13 -0400 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:50:50 -0000 Lets start with the points of agreement. The currently defined rule is a very coarse net. It tries to filter out folks without sufficient exposure to the IETF work to have sufficient context for judging and selecting the leadership. There are many folks who believe it is already too coarse, allowing many folks with insufficient exposure. On the other hand, it clearly does exclude some folks with sufficient exposure who care about the IETF and are affected by the leadership. Find Having said that, as far as I can tell, there simply is not enough information exposed to a participant who attends a single WG remotely for several IETFs and one face-to-face meeting. Do we eve know with any meaningful confidence who the remote participants are? I doubt it, particularly if they have not chosen to speak or jabber. Unfortunately, leadership is about interacting with people. Judging leadership is largely about judging the interaction with people. I have trouble seeing how that can be done without understanding the behavior as it is experienced face-to-face. Yours, Joel On 6/25/2013 6:37 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Joel, > At 15:31 25-06-2013, Joel wrote: >> What does it mean to "attend ... IETF meetings remotely ..." > > The IETF allows for remote participation at meetings ( > http://www.ietf.org/meeting/remote-participation.html ). It is another > way to contribute the IETF without being physically present at the > meeting venue. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jun 25 16:09:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560B711E8184 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:09:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3AtnSunxClsr for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE5511E8183 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.129.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5PN8rR5006556 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:09:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372201745; bh=UHohfeyz+d3zH+XnEfwsDZ7+pZlyLhjTv/9MmeWts4U=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=xih7dmeWEJZxt4fHQ7teo7Oe0UmvIruwOrLVWMre1U5xd1jpErSVkdZBRfi7exSnV eL3B9LelTipyVFk+wj1r5Fw4n4qJh7fXVIW2KPgIc0neivsxPhM+Xoiq8UkOq8XDlD 9q8tg8A5fxzpcY3v7yuH+PX0Yyig91O9c8LOksgY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372201745; i=@elandsys.com; bh=UHohfeyz+d3zH+XnEfwsDZ7+pZlyLhjTv/9MmeWts4U=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=a3qra7h4IIOTxpSfneublA0M6HDUiRj/OsefogdAkeQa3EewF9hdEYtktRwmXb/vS KZevfeDgkYhGzTX3fDY3VF+SvtNNCLN9seYhNIRDXfngRIX1VSl7Ud8LBdvzW6xQyK 2PfIxiphD+47sSPid6E1+FfrrDmQUnfHnh5vkZzc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625155417.0d644bc0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:08:13 -0700 To: Russ Housley From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <2E498072-E769-4D11-9797-6F47B0D9EF3C@vigilsec.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <2E498072-E769-4D11-9797-6F47B0D9EF3C@vigilsec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:09:07 -0000 Hi Russ, At 15:50 25-06-2013, Russ Housley wrote: >Please take a look at the IESG statement: >http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/nomcom-eligibility-and-day-passes.html I have read that statement. In my opinion it is up to NomCom to interpret the relevant BCPs. >If participating for a full day in an IETF meeting is not >sufficient, then I think that hard-to-quantify participation via the >the remote participation tools is even less desirable as a >qualification. I think that meeting participation, especially the >hard to measure things like hallway conversations, are important to >learning the IETF culture. I think we want the people that are >picking our leaders to understand that culture. I'll argue that it would be better to give everyone a fair deal. If a person contributes to the IETF Standards Process he or she be able to enjoy the same privileges as other contributors. If a person is from some remote part of the world and does not have the financial means to have that hallway conversation, he/she is not eligible to sign a Recall petition. A person may have understood the IETF culture and yet the person is still considered as a second-class citizen. I think that it is better to offer everyone who contributes the same opportunity. Regards, S. Moonesamy From fred@cisco.com Tue Jun 25 16:23:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A202821E80E5 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:23:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sqppMKLI7f-3 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F6111E80FB for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:23:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=643; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372202619; x=1373412219; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=C2ZVR1tIFEF/gJueMSVHaCeGhzq3hR2ZsHVcLyIFk7g=; b=BIRYdJpDfED8k6/xkwYX2FwSyVmlLbOyp+tGwADEwtz4qrxCL+/XK3NH RyaVUdE2gs6WYdnL5rouJsHU3keQZX3OV4vADjMxqK0/zX8Mw2EIlJ+J7 LRAVjGEI/qAPC7s5HOzTCYM0iMHKy0h1wYM4kaBADULE4CgbP7iqNXWEe Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FALQlylGtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABagwl6gj68eYEGFnSCIwEBAQMBOj8FCwIBCCIUEDIlAgQOBQiIAAa6TI8XAjEHgwJhA6kIgxGCKA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,940,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="224415056" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jun 2013 23:23:38 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5PNNcv0015065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:23:38 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.220]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:23:38 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Joel Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility Thread-Index: AQHOcfN+GGOFYnb4cEqyrAwyv66eXplHV3kAgAABnoCAAAOIgIAACVCA Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:23:37 +0000 Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> In-Reply-To: <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.125] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" , S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:23:50 -0000 On Jun 25, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Joel wrote: > Unfortunately, leadership is about interacting with people. Judging lead= ership is largely about judging the interaction with people. I have troubl= e seeing how that can be done without understanding the behavior as it is e= xperienced face-to-face. A point I would add is that the nomcom does some of its work at a face-to-f= ace meeting, and the people it selects will need to meet face-to-face from = time to time. If a nomcom candidate is unable or unwilling to attend meetin= gs, I'm not sure that s/he is in a position to comment on those that do.= From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jun 25 16:34:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A36621E80A9 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:34:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lFnJxyTAT699 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0E421E80BE for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.129.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5PNXxDk028468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:34:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372203251; bh=kgji69Z+vdNLVj91TLNw8rMOv9epmMk2MNJblUTGzO8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rHXb1twN5hm4WODwBq2GQY4mamqv8jxfY+dfr8hCSoagE83n8jUOabmTl2tQu42mE Zn/4A8ox17WEvOl4zRMC2G+nOJMjAV964R2O2p+lwh6wyoTWdyFHdokBK7TVNOlpg3 AZ6g/pmXnYBUewuIRCIvwHYLfeJ12wUPq7ofrDpU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372203251; i=@elandsys.com; bh=kgji69Z+vdNLVj91TLNw8rMOv9epmMk2MNJblUTGzO8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Fq8p97cUUK1FQewUZmmIbw29ewCbbMZ3kjtBcVq2RwHpbJcQZSTNISfTiIPj+RFAy tMxk1hCm/dhD3ls9FfxjDZY1LJ3Ozye6JHs0yE62AQWwHR+rWuRzeHyMyhEu6C5Te2 k3jBMNxWKeixS4GLKbTBFVuAIlXoQXRC7Ff2gnRI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625160852.0d644d08@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:27:25 -0700 To: Joel From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:34:17 -0000 Hi Joel, At 15:50 25-06-2013, Joel wrote: >Lets start with the points of agreement. Ok. >The currently defined rule is a very coarse net. It tries to filter >out folks without sufficient exposure to the IETF work to have >sufficient context for judging and selecting the leadership. Yes. The question is whether that filter is successful. >There are many folks who believe it is already too coarse, allowing >many folks with insufficient exposure. Ok. >On the other hand, it clearly does exclude some folks with >sufficient exposure who care about the IETF and are affected by the >leadership. Find Ok. >Having said that, as far as I can tell, there simply is not enough >information exposed to a participant who attends a single WG >remotely for several IETFs and one face-to-face meeting. The same can be said of a person who has attended three meetings. >Do we eve know with any meaningful confidence who the remote >participants are? I doubt it, particularly if they have not chosen >to speak or jabber. If a person has not said or written anything he or she is not a contributor (re. IPR discussions). If we do not have any meaningful confidence that contributions over Jabber are valid, then the IETF has a serious IPR problem. >Unfortunately, leadership is about interacting with people. Judging >leadership is largely about judging the interaction with people. I >have trouble seeing how that can be done without understanding the >behavior as it is experienced face-to-face. I respect your opinion. I'll provide mine below. It has been said repeatedly that IETF work is done through mailing lists. If we cannot judge interaction with people through that the IETF might as well give up on the pretence that IETF work is done through mailing lists. The face-to-face behavior is different from mailing list behavior. I think that mailing list interaction matters more as we spend the most part of the year doing that. If an Area Director, for example, can only show leadership in person I doubt that the person will be able to do much through email. It has been said repeatedly that "we don't have to hold meetings in Country X for you to be able to attend, you can participate remotely". Are we saying what we believe or is it, a polite excuse? Regards, S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jun 25 16:34:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB38721E80EC for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:34:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oseBT9mgBjvv for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F4821E80E5 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.129.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5PNXxDm028468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:34:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372203256; bh=H8LIz/Fca9PEf0J8ms1Hfa7L1ABTmlKlfMRu4sU0t88=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=qXle0VptdiDTC7HEUgjSoymH6yIgGSRVen/X51sXpKKrzXXGDdoR2UW/W92HOd+w5 8+3oJYT5n6bogdgOhUlDFS7v2vOWV6M1Lxmmgc//CpZU8ptyORE9aDv1Bfw6sIOdyI FsLjXCI0uHWk2PydAEzYjOmC2OK+OyS9HUHBYJwA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372203256; i=@elandsys.com; bh=H8LIz/Fca9PEf0J8ms1Hfa7L1ABTmlKlfMRu4sU0t88=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=XQ4LcehlsopCCe/JVaKVY4gV1Z16qUakS5LB3BUWZ4UQ5Ht3n7zfmFTji+ZU1LXWQ 6AM1sHCIkt02eLOIs9JWeOxBeRCa2puCblOvGGx/6yPq2ZvXveY8VH+Nk7JnWpmCqp IB0WW4qJP3EshbGfEX+h/SLZ/7ebsWRYosF4suGU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:33:27 -0700 To: "Fred Baker (fred)" From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.c om> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:34:18 -0000 Hi Fred, At 16:23 25-06-2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >A point I would add is that the nomcom does some of its work at a >face-to-face meeting, and the people it selects will need to meet >face-to-face from time to time. If a nomcom candidate is unable or >unwilling to attend meetings, I'm not sure that s/he is in a >position to comment on those that do. I'll apologize beforehand for asking an unfair question. Which of the following requires work at a face-to-face meeting: (a) NomCom (b) Eligibility to sign a Recall petition (c) IESG (d) IAB (e) IAOC (f) Directorate member (g) Working Group Chair (h) Working Group Secretary Regards, S. Moonesamy From fred@cisco.com Tue Jun 25 18:33:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA0811E8190 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:33:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6OQg3pZLZceB for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B2111E8189 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:33:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2891; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372210408; x=1373420008; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=25y0wd1XP+XtFhoU2w1d2/+tPQss4LaVUxTO7tT+MSk=; b=XsoAL2lsgaiZgSnnZC142mHAdTGf82JkkK2a69hqSE7+Vnt2wybP3cbR 5AN8br9NoyBk8AkRlr0Dx3C0lKBHP4B3b/1KxvMkPlOdLDHIn2NyxjHpE ql/3inD5K2Pgj01QE4+1JDUyQVgkohjBnQOKdjkRMaqDsXiEfo5F+Ss7B I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAGZEylGtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagwl6vziBCBZ0giMBAQEDATo/BQsCAQgYChQQMiUCBA4FCAyHdAa6TY4IgQ8CMQeDAmEDqQiDEYFxNw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,940,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="224439762" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2013 01:33:27 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5Q1XRBp014328 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:33:27 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.220]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:33:26 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: S Moonesamy Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility Thread-Index: AQHOcfN+GGOFYnb4cEqyrAwyv66eXplHV3kAgAABnoCAAAOIgIAACVCA//+vMeeAAHUVgA== Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:33:26 +0000 Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.125] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <018FB6420804824692EC32990402B10D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:33:44 -0000 On Jun 25, 2013, at 4:33 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Fred, > At 16:23 25-06-2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> A point I would add is that the nomcom does some of its work at a face-t= o-face meeting, and the people it selects will need to meet face-to-face fr= om time to time. If a nomcom candidate is unable or unwilling to attend mee= tings, I'm not sure that s/he is in a position to comment on those that do. >=20 > I'll apologize beforehand for asking an unfair question. Which of the fo= llowing requires work at a face-to-face meeting: Not sure what's unfair about it. I'd suggest, if you're really interested, = that you job-shadow these people. I can answer because with the exception o= f a recall committee (which we have never had) I have been in each of those= roles, or (PPPEXT WG Secretary) been the chair of a working group that had= one. > (a) NomCom Nomcoms interview candidates and have meetings at IETF meetings. They also = have other meetings, mostly by telephone. A person that doesn't, for whatev= er reason, participate in IETF meetings would be unable to participate face= to face in the face to face meetings. > (b) Eligibility to sign a Recall petition RFC 3777 does not require face-to-face meeting in a recall. However, it doe= s requite that 1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may request by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet Society President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member. and as noted, the nominating committee meets face to face as well as by tel= ephone. > (c) IESG The IESG meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to meetings = at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats. > (d) IAB The IAB meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to meetings a= t the IETF, they hold IESG retreats. > (e) IAOC The IAOC meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to meetings = at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats. You didn't mention the RSOC, but it also meets face to face at IETF meeting= s. > (f) Directorate member That depends on the directorate. I can tell you about the one I am on. It d= oes a lot of work by email, and meets face to face at IETF meetings. > (g) Working Group Chair I won't say that all chairs must show up at every meeting; one of the reaso= ns we have co-chairs is to give us a certain level of flexibility. But at l= east one of them has to show up, and in general, they all show up. > (h) Working Group Secretary Those working groups that have them set their own guidelines for them. They= do have to have their finger on the working group's pulse, so to speak, wh= ich includes both email and f2f. > Regards, > S. Moonesamy=20 From fred@cisco.com Tue Jun 25 18:40:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DECC21E8100 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:40:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Iaeb2kQIitov for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDDAB11E8192 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:40:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3296; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372210819; x=1373420419; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=r9cR674HdNx9OKShqERcojcrpHlSAeGWweDVkuCQTBI=; b=Z3V5/Rxh/+ZCgMxU85cGktt8SGjPX/ceELkjtqm6lEFPZJ6PFX4kHHb3 5+o5aRvBpUaBhqfuWz5s+x7iobwNuLyodGnITbHKBu5GGwopCt6DPIz2z 64/TJqLjlCAN5vedce8tT9yrjX8DxkCm1Ha8ncU49yrkV1O9LxSfXDhIv w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAF1FylGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABagwl6vziBCBZ0giMBAQEDATo/EAIBCBgKFBAyJQIEDgUIDId0BrpMjgiBDwIxB4MCYQOpCIMRgXE3 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,940,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="224440875" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2013 01:40:19 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5Q1eJak014901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:40:19 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.220]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:40:18 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: S Moonesamy Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility Thread-Index: AQHOcfN+GGOFYnb4cEqyrAwyv66eXg== Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:40:17 +0000 Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267E4@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <36A9C11E-40E6-4556-AD80-A3C44567C76D@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <36A9C11E-40E6-4556-AD80-A3C44567C76D@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.125] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9A7D151446AF7744850E284C257D16CB@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ietf-nomcom@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:40:25 -0000 I committed two typos. Edits inline. On Jun 25, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >=20 > On Jun 25, 2013, at 4:33 PM, S Moonesamy > wrote: >=20 >> Hi Fred, >> At 16:23 25-06-2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >>> A point I would add is that the nomcom does some of its work at a face-= to-face meeting, and the people it selects will need to meet face-to-face f= rom time to time. If a nomcom candidate is unable or unwilling to attend me= etings, I'm not sure that s/he is in a position to comment on those that do= . >>=20 >> I'll apologize beforehand for asking an unfair question. Which of the f= ollowing requires work at a face-to-face meeting: >=20 > Not sure what's unfair about it. I'd suggest, if you're really interested= , that you job-shadow these people. I can answer because with the exception= of a recall committee (which we have never had) I have been in each of tho= se roles, or (PPPEXT WG Secretary) been the chair of a working group that h= ad one. >=20 >> (a) NomCom >=20 > Nomcoms interview candidates and have meetings at IETF meetings. They als= o have other meetings, mostly by telephone. A person that doesn't, for what= ever reason, participate in IETF meetings would be unable to participate fa= ce to face in the face to face meetings. >=20 >> (b) Eligibility to sign a Recall petition >=20 > RFC 3777 does not require face-to-face meeting in a recall. However, it d= oes requite that >=20 > 1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are > qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may > request by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet > Society President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member. >=20 > and as noted, the nominating committee meets face to face as well as by t= elephone. >=20 >> (c) IESG >=20 > The IESG meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to meeting= s at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats. >=20 >> (d) IAB >=20 > The IAB meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to meetings= at the IETF, they hold *IAB* retreats. >=20 >> (e) IAOC >=20 > The IAOC meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to meeting= s at the IETF, they hold *IAOC* retreats. >=20 > You didn't mention the RSOC, but it also meets face to face at IETF meeti= ngs. >=20 >> (f) Directorate member >=20 > That depends on the directorate. I can tell you about the one I am on. It= does a lot of work by email, and meets face to face at IETF meetings. >=20 >> (g) Working Group Chair >=20 > I won't say that all chairs must show up at every meeting; one of the rea= sons we have co-chairs is to give us a certain level of flexibility. But at= least one of them has to show up, and in general, they all show up. >=20 >> (h) Working Group Secretary >=20 > Those working groups that have them set their own guidelines for them. Th= ey do have to have their finger on the working group's pulse, so to speak, = which includes both email and f2f. >=20 >> Regards, >> S. Moonesamy=20 >=20 ---------------------------------------------------- The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially.=20 - Marshall McLuhan From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jun 25 20:54:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A3621F9B9E for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:54:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KFVQuLqWpKVo for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF9021F9B98 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.129.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5Q3rYUM002585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:53:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372218827; bh=t//QuaVITUko0joDcIzrexeNXjm+iPCwrVUVPSHz42Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=CTdR468OrlNB8vwhiGjrL5jPVtdFrDOWjSLjo3UMoPcrYZJgWY5ZGiEMkuBlfSDdS KwB7S6f7tt/9m4rJ2OZ2uaA5ywoEHsGE/sU0JQOJbltXc8+C17BacTC0wQTLNWo4wf Oyowp7ymJAxmaJQ4czil4huJP9KwuCMENcyd2NQE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372218827; i=@elandsys.com; bh=t//QuaVITUko0joDcIzrexeNXjm+iPCwrVUVPSHz42Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rtlp0z3LTxul0RKGj/Ik3g2U/5UezNsQOxd+T2xmlI9rkDZZmjNPFnh6JSqsCyBtT 2GV3mPMWSas/wKAKFfmQHc1Xfe27DBWY+QRbC0A6a2SGA0PDh35uG5DlRful32km1Q FzS+dJ2hF2JZkwID3inVOwDCpA911N+SdYX5Z1jo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:53:05 -0700 To: "Fred Baker (fred)" From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.c om> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 03:54:00 -0000 Hi Fred, At 18:33 25-06-2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >Not sure what's unfair about it. I'd suggest, if you're really >interested, that you job- It might be a leading question. Please note that I read the message about "I committed two typos. Edits inline." > > (a) NomCom > >Nomcoms interview candidates and have meetings at IETF meetings. >They also have other meetings, mostly by telephone. A person that >doesn't, for whatever reason, participate in IETF meetings would be >unable to participate face to face in the face to face meetings. I'll say ok as I have not been part of NomCom. > > (b) Eligibility to sign a Recall petition > >RFC 3777 does not require face-to-face meeting in a recall. However, >it does requite that > > 1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are > qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may > request by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet > Society President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member. > >and as noted, the nominating committee meets face to face as well as >by telephone. Yes. I read that as meaning that I would not be able to sign a Recall petition. It could be argued that I still have to find the 19 other members of the IETF. If I recall correctly the issue of the IETF Trust Chair was discussed and it would have gone on if he did not step forward with a petition. I'll highlight that the case of the IETF Trust Chair was one which nobody thought would happen. It did happen even if the person was considered to have understood the IETF culture. > > (c) IESG > >The IESG meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to >meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats. > > > (d) IAB > >The IAB meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to >meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats. > > > (e) IAOC > >The IAOC meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to >meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats. I won't comment about (c), (d) and (e) for now as I have not been on any of these bodies. >You didn't mention the RSOC, but it also meets face to face at IETF meetings. I intentionally left it out. I did not apply for that position even though I am familiar with the RFC Editor Model Version 1 & 2. I have also participated in the discussions about the Independent Submissions Stream. People were arguing to get rid of that stream. > > (f) Directorate member > >That depends on the directorate. I can tell you about the one I am >on. It does a lot of work by email, and meets face to face at IETF meetings. The one I am on does all the work by email. I have not met some of the members in person. I'll guess that we all get along as the directorate has been working beyond expectations. > > (g) Working Group Chair > >I won't say that all chairs must show up at every meeting; one of >the reasons we have co-chairs is to give us a certain level of >flexibility. But at least one of them has to show up, and in >general, they all show up. I am currently co-chair. I have never physically chaired the WG. I recall that John Klensin chaired a WG remotely. Chris Newman also participated remotely in the WG he chaired. > > (h) Working Group Secretary > >Those working groups that have them set their own guidelines for >them. They do have to have their finger on the working group's >pulse, so to speak, which includes both email and f2f. I was WG Secretary. It's been mostly remote for me. On a side note I'll repeat again that I don't think that people are not doing enough or that I am better. We do X because the people before us did it that way. I was discussing with a WG Secretary (remotely) and I was pleasantly surprised to see how she organized her work. I told her that I will borrow her idea as it looks more effective. There is the discussion about inclusiveness. My take is that the IETF is excluding people if it sets requirements without providing a clear picture for people to see whether they are absolutely necessary. Bernard and Eliot commented about "new blood". A strict reading of the above means that none of these positions are open to people who cannot attend IETF meetings. If there isn't any scope for people to move into a position or higher up, my guess is that people will walk away after a while or focus on single issues only. There is a resistance to reviewing the fundamentals even in the face of systemic issues. If nobody takes a critical view of the things (please note that I do not mean people) there isn't nothing much which can be changed. Regards, S. Moonesamy From jmh@joelhalpern.com Tue Jun 25 21:06:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE87321E804E for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:06:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h1HGDBh8grJp for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE9E11E819A for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0BB1C0041; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:06:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.104] (pool-70-106-134-124.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.134.124]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F12671C0025; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 00:05:54 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 04:06:23 -0000 In spite of our claims, when I am explaining to folks I work with how to make an impact on the IETF, and how to understand the IETF, I always make clear that attending some of the time is necessary. They don't have to coem to every meeting, but if you have not seen the sausage making several times, a lot of the discussions by email are very difficult to follow. (Yes, some folks manage. More power to them.) And if you are working to advance a document, it is in practice very helpful to be at meetings. Yours, Joel On 6/25/2013 11:53 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Fred, > At 18:33 25-06-2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> Not sure what's unfair about it. I'd suggest, if you're really >> interested, that you job- > > It might be a leading question. Please note that I read the message > about "I committed two typos. Edits inline." > >> > (a) NomCom >> >> Nomcoms interview candidates and have meetings at IETF meetings. They >> also have other meetings, mostly by telephone. A person that doesn't, >> for whatever reason, participate in IETF meetings would be unable to >> participate face to face in the face to face meetings. > > I'll say ok as I have not been part of NomCom. > >> > (b) Eligibility to sign a Recall petition >> >> RFC 3777 does not require face-to-face meeting in a recall. However, >> it does requite that >> >> 1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are >> qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may >> request by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet >> Society President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member. >> >> and as noted, the nominating committee meets face to face as well as >> by telephone. > > Yes. I read that as meaning that I would not be able to sign a Recall > petition. It could be argued that I still have to find the 19 other > members of the IETF. If I recall correctly the issue of the IETF Trust > Chair was discussed and it would have gone on if he did not step forward > with a petition. > > I'll highlight that the case of the IETF Trust Chair was one which > nobody thought would happen. It did happen even if the person was > considered to have understood the IETF culture. > >> > (c) IESG >> >> The IESG meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to >> meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats. >> >> > (d) IAB >> >> The IAB meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to >> meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats. >> >> > (e) IAOC >> >> The IAOC meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to >> meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats. > > I won't comment about (c), (d) and (e) for now as I have not been on any > of these bodies. > >> You didn't mention the RSOC, but it also meets face to face at IETF >> meetings. > > I intentionally left it out. I did not apply for that position even > though I am familiar with the RFC Editor Model Version 1 & 2. I have > also participated in the discussions about the Independent Submissions > Stream. People were arguing to get rid of that stream. > >> > (f) Directorate member >> >> That depends on the directorate. I can tell you about the one I am on. >> It does a lot of work by email, and meets face to face at IETF meetings. > > The one I am on does all the work by email. I have not met some of the > members in person. I'll guess that we all get along as the directorate > has been working beyond expectations. > >> > (g) Working Group Chair >> >> I won't say that all chairs must show up at every meeting; one of the >> reasons we have co-chairs is to give us a certain level of >> flexibility. But at least one of them has to show up, and in general, >> they all show up. > > I am currently co-chair. I have never physically chaired the WG. I > recall that John Klensin chaired a WG remotely. Chris Newman also > participated remotely in the WG he chaired. > >> > (h) Working Group Secretary >> >> Those working groups that have them set their own guidelines for them. >> They do have to have their finger on the working group's pulse, so to >> speak, which includes both email and f2f. > > I was WG Secretary. It's been mostly remote for me. > > On a side note I'll repeat again that I don't think that people are not > doing enough or that I am better. We do X because the people before us > did it that way. I was discussing with a WG Secretary (remotely) and I > was pleasantly surprised to see how she organized her work. I told her > that I will borrow her idea as it looks more effective. > > There is the discussion about inclusiveness. My take is that the IETF > is excluding people if it sets requirements without providing a clear > picture for people to see whether they are absolutely necessary. > Bernard and Eliot commented about "new blood". A strict reading of the > above means that none of these positions are open to people who cannot > attend IETF meetings. If there isn't any scope for people to move into > a position or higher up, my guess is that people will walk away after a > while or focus on single issues only. There is a resistance to > reviewing the fundamentals even in the face of systemic issues. If > nobody takes a critical view of the things (please note that I do not > mean people) there isn't nothing much which can be changed. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jun 25 22:21:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC1211E810A for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:21:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bmr4ZwbVTwMP for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2F221F9BCA for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.129.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5Q5KrhL000540 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:21:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372224066; bh=F3aGFyc37LUR9AQLNpYQPJOEMorWpO5+N6hG3r7BZuE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=NcjrzBNPuFiuV6pGLSyLYq7ue3WrbuKKR5tMsRfgKUjepVVSxehRu3h8a9XjRzDTm GzJDLLab2nKl2y5/ZLPuPQhqfTlsfp4ioHFW5IxV43GxY+7nBnyLXltnUxapC7NVvW U980yg0ny4Qcm5ktYx81FYy9z902IUZhS9Utf3fc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372224066; i=@elandsys.com; bh=F3aGFyc37LUR9AQLNpYQPJOEMorWpO5+N6hG3r7BZuE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=iPGnJt7ZZmqIdHmMXWocJRkhCyBrG5iPlh7guDjopzwBbftCVodaEL1SFXFCouaQ/ 2mwuT0okp0GfzqPfp45Py2wZ++Y3MVcPBjChqyZC4r09Ht0r0panHgMdxMhAtfR5JT UlFYGXNjaRj+Esx00ZiKpk0b16ZQ8NzfNRYX0TUo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:18:49 -0700 To: "Joel M. Halpern" From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 05:21:42 -0000 Hi Joel, At 21:05 25-06-2013, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >In spite of our claims, when I am explaining to folks I work with >how to make an impact on the IETF, and how to understand the IETF, I >always make clear that attending some of the time is >necessary. They don't have to coem to every meeting, but if you >have not seen the sausage making several times, a lot of the >discussions by email are very difficult to follow. (Yes, some folks >manage. More power to them.) > >And if you are working to advance a document, it is in practice very >helpful to be at meetings. It basically means that the only way to understand the IETF is to have the ability to pay for expensive trips. This reduces participation to people with rich sponsors. Someone asked why we are not seeing more participation from South America and Africa. One explanation would be that if a person would like to participate effectively, the person has to leave the region and move to a developed country. It makes the brain drain more acute but that's not what we are discussing here. There are three IAB members from Europe and one from China. There are two IESG members from Europe. What the IETF is not saying is that there will never be any IAB or IESG member from any other region. There is one IAOC member from Europe. Everyone else is from the United States. It has always been that way and that's how it will be. The IAOC understands [sic] the visa issues as its members have the experience of queuing in the sun and pay large sums of money for a visa. When I see a question such as: "If there is anybody in this mail list from big vendors like Juniper, Cisco, Extreme, and others, please let me know what you have done to stimulate your engineers from emerging countries to get involved with IETF." Note: Fred responded to the question. I am aware that it is the view shared by many people in emerging regions. You won't hear it in the hallway conversations or at the microphone. The view I am getting from this mailing list is that "people from emerging regions are disenfranchised; that's how IETF culture works". Regards, S. Moonesamy From housley@vigilsec.com Wed Jun 26 06:12:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAB621E8106 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:12:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nKYO2zYdLzph for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C918A21E8088 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36A8F2407E; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:12:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aqGfXMC5+EHq; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.109] (pool-96-241-156-29.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.156.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72DD7F24070; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625155417.0d644bc0@resistor.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:12:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <027D2AB5-0D7A-4E9B-A5FD-379DE2E3D732@vigilsec.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <2E498072-E769-4D11-9797-6F47B0D9EF3C@vigilsec.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625155417.0d644bc0@resistor.net> To: S Moonesamy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:12:23 -0000 SM: >> Please take a look at the IESG statement: >> = http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/nomcom-eligibility-and-day-passes.html >=20 > I have read that statement. In my opinion it is up to NomCom to = interpret the relevant BCPs. That is not possible in this case. The Secretariat needs to tell the = NomCom Chair whether a particular volunteer is eligible. So, this = aspect of the rules needs to be nailed down for the Secretariat to do = their part is seating NomCom. Russ From joel@stevecrocker.com Wed Jun 26 06:35:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B324521E814A for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:35:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0il6loFftfuy for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE5421E8147 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dummy.name; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:34:59 +0000 Message-ID: <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:34:37 -0400 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:35:12 -0000 I appreciate the clarity of your response below, and hope I have understood to. To highlight where I see the disconnect, you are proposing that we appoint nomcom members who are lacking critical understanding of how the IETF works, in order to bring in better perspective on the needs of the folks who are not presently involved. I would like to see more involvement from more folks i more parts of the world wit more diverse sponsors (including making it easier for those without sponsors). But trying to change the culture by picing folks to pick leaders who do not understand the existing needs and culture seems a recipe for failure. Put simply, I think we need to come up with good ways to improve the various forms of involvement. The efforts by the IAOC to improve the remote participation setup is a step towards that. I hope that the diversity committee will come up with useful steps. Maybe highlight the issue the way you have is a helpful step. But actually changing the rules the way you suggest strikes me as a really bad idea. Yours, Joel On 6/26/2013 1:18 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Joel, > At 21:05 25-06-2013, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> In spite of our claims, when I am explaining to folks I work with how >> to make an impact on the IETF, and how to understand the IETF, I >> always make clear that attending some of the time is necessary. They >> don't have to coem to every meeting, but if you have not seen the >> sausage making several times, a lot of the discussions by email are >> very difficult to follow. (Yes, some folks manage. More power to them.) >> >> And if you are working to advance a document, it is in practice very >> helpful to be at meetings. > > It basically means that the only way to understand the IETF is to have > the ability to pay for expensive trips. This reduces participation to > people with rich sponsors. Someone asked why we are not seeing more > participation from South America and Africa. One explanation would be > that if a person would like to participate effectively, the person has > to leave the region and move to a developed country. It makes the brain > drain more acute but that's not what we are discussing here. > > There are three IAB members from Europe and one from China. There are > two IESG members from Europe. What the IETF is not saying is that there > will never be any IAB or IESG member from any other region. > > There is one IAOC member from Europe. Everyone else is from the United > States. It has always been that way and that's how it will be. The > IAOC understands [sic] the visa issues as its members have the > experience of queuing in the sun and pay large sums of money for a visa. > > When I see a question such as: > > "If there is anybody in this mail list from big vendors like Juniper, > Cisco, > Extreme, and others, please let me know what you have done to stimulate > your engineers from emerging countries to get involved with IETF." > > Note: Fred responded to the question. > > I am aware that it is the view shared by many people in emerging > regions. You won't hear it in the hallway conversations or at the > microphone. > > The view I am getting from this mailing list is that "people from > emerging regions are disenfranchised; that's how IETF culture works". > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From dhc@dcrocker.net Wed Jun 26 07:28:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF231F0D38 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:28:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8HlCxG-uzFDj for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D141F0D33 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.58.167.33] (72-254-23-2.client.stsn.net [72.254.23.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5QESX0E018272 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:28:36 -0700 Message-ID: <51CAFA8C.7090207@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:28:28 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> In-Reply-To: <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org, S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:28:54 -0000 On 6/26/2013 6:34 AM, Joel wrote: > you are proposing that we appoint nomcom members who are lacking > critical understanding of how the IETF works, Joel, The premise of that sentence is that current selection criteria produce nomcom members with a "critical understanding of how the IETF works". While the current criteria serve to filter out some people lacking that understanding, they actually have nothing to do with understanding. They do not even require that the nomcom member has actively participated in a working group, nevermind having never had direct contact with any of the positions being selected by nomcom. "Attending" IETF meetings does not guarantee any level of knowledge about IETF work, yet "attending" is the key criterion. The selection criteria and the sampling method from the candidate pool for nomcom members does tend to produce some members with significant understanding, but that's a sampling artifact, rather than being assured. And indeed the composition of some nomcom membership slates have had remarkably little "critical understanding of how the IETF works". d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From joel@stevecrocker.com Wed Jun 26 07:31:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E051621F936E for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:31:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yH9d5oZrvo2R for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B118721F9EBB for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dummy.name; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:31:39 +0000 Message-ID: <51CAFB35.2010100@stevecrocker.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:31:17 -0400 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <51CAFA8C.7090207@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <51CAFA8C.7090207@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org, S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:31:47 -0000 Yes Dave, I am aware of the bad fit between our current selection procedure and our goals. I noted this in my first note on the topic. But expanding the pool to folks who have only been to 1 IETF face-to-face meeting would seem to make this worse. Yours, Joel On 6/26/2013 10:28 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 6/26/2013 6:34 AM, Joel wrote: >> you are proposing that we appoint nomcom members who are lacking >> critical understanding of how the IETF works, > > > Joel, > > The premise of that sentence is that current selection criteria produce > nomcom members with a "critical understanding of how the IETF works". > > While the current criteria serve to filter out some people lacking that > understanding, they actually have nothing to do with understanding. They > do not even require that the nomcom member has actively participated in > a working group, nevermind having never had direct contact with any of > the positions being selected by nomcom. > > "Attending" IETF meetings does not guarantee any level of knowledge > about IETF work, yet "attending" is the key criterion. > > The selection criteria and the sampling method from the candidate pool > for nomcom members does tend to produce some members with significant > understanding, but that's a sampling artifact, rather than being > assured. And indeed the composition of some nomcom membership slates > have had remarkably little "critical understanding of how the IETF works". > > d/ > From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jun 26 07:34:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C10721E809A for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:34:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h07TbqMTd-9S for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F9421E8085 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5QEY0PL007928 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:34:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372257252; bh=647DuQMtL0PACxm4AAtButZAqsp9kLWyEa5UBc/YvY0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=H0M2SivpL4yLSgPf57kK2f+zhlbCeaQghdWv+l0I612Fgn6veVlnb3ZByiFqMfAXg G4S/aZN1CT0PF4aAdhMl9yKZyYcY7LZEvzX+QvJQ3iU5nvf/eNFyrblz+kBxzwOzPY kVOyMled/9vGaJcTGFh/YITs7rXG2dU3CSSxMZmM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372257252; i=@elandsys.com; bh=647DuQMtL0PACxm4AAtButZAqsp9kLWyEa5UBc/YvY0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=T0vctldqNI30yla8ySECSvvUzvMn1USGzQrQt+RjMhvxAHP3e+7oGxQ/QcLHE11zZ q0+vMHYcpf6INr1PCO+DJPBmaw6xmZjCv4PKm+1LmRyIgnuxIWQigDmQodTBQweEmJ 40zWWG/iX+tNyfdbI9aiwp1DsLWndLuKTeLyo8bs= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626063006.0d7effd8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:52:42 -0700 To: Russ Housley From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <027D2AB5-0D7A-4E9B-A5FD-379DE2E3D732@vigilsec.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <2E498072-E769-4D11-9797-6F47B0D9EF3C@vigilsec.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625155417.0d644bc0@resistor.net> <027D2AB5-0D7A-4E9B-A5FD-379DE2E3D732@vigilsec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:34:13 -0000 Hi Russ, At 06:12 26-06-2013, Russ Housley wrote: >That is not possible in this case. The Secretariat needs to tell >the NomCom Chair whether a particular volunteer is eligible. So, >this aspect of the rules needs to be nailed down for the Secretariat >to do their part is seating NomCom. The IETF Secretariat is supposed to perform administrative duties. It is hired by the IAOC. If this aspect of the rules is a serious problem the IETF Community will likely be able to address it. I don't think that it is appropriate for me to give you a disingenuous answer. The issue is valid and it will have to be addressed. Regards, S. Moonesamy From dhc@dcrocker.net Wed Jun 26 07:37:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B5C21E811E for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:37:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GwMlmDLv9cSM for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C3711E811B for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.58.167.33] (72-254-23-2.client.stsn.net [72.254.23.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5QEb4Ji018418 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:37:07 -0700 Message-ID: <51CAFC8B.3070804@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:36:59 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <51CAFA8C.7090207@dcrocker.net> <51CAFB35.2010100@stevecrocker.com> In-Reply-To: <51CAFB35.2010100@stevecrocker.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:37:12 -0000 On 6/26/2013 7:31 AM, Joel wrote: > But expanding the pool to folks who have only been to 1 IETF > face-to-face meeting would seem to make this worse. I completely agree. Including more people with less knowledge certainly cannot help things. However my point is that criticism of suggestions needs to be based on a reasonable agreement about the current state of affairs, so there is fair comparison. My concern was that your sentence that I cited implied a far better state of affairs than actually exists. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 07:44:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6843A21E8126 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:44:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RNpg1btszE7A for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x234.google.com (mail-qa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F4C21F9989 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id bv4so1574005qab.18 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:43:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=nBUcQbcApSCwN7Tj5Ie6sswLkVp7jZWaZdcCQC/quG4=; b=BtY4vjOYkYV211PtXOefwvYpntvSlNq4n4GUGawMmwHzp6x1pgwW3PcNco7BwbWrua EQQbuHt7YYiJp4LpiTF4pWw2PTIOY/PlXX93AjOQ+tkAok/5plEUGFQEqOI0C4QRryLG wdN33yyUJbpV5SctK5FviAmDm221X/fSRdOFjIS7x4qZcXRzl4oOa1JVELKQN/xx8P+u N6J/xJnwQoJam1njwNITC2MInR4CIBZlMuKpKi8ICJgLJdd3RFzR921DOaPj4TXiwmHK QD40DDWzhx34ccAXGHnTSM79WzqhiO20vLCI/cobKknkVYWxoAjrNuyeB+3sgH522NLl UJkg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.147.145 with SMTP id l17mr6158711qav.3.1372257829737; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.76.167 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:43:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51CAFB35.2010100@stevecrocker.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <51CAFA8C.7090207@dcrocker.net> <51CAFB35.2010100@stevecrocker.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:43:49 -0500 Message-ID: From: Mary Barnes To: Joel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss , Dave Crocker , S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:44:00 -0000 On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Joel wrote: > Yes Dave, I am aware of the bad fit between our current selection procedure > and our goals. I noted this in my first note on the topic. > > But expanding the pool to folks who have only been to 1 IETF face-to-face > meeting would seem to make this worse. [MB] I totally agree (having also been a Nomcom chair in the past). I firmly believe that we change the selection criteria to ensure we really do have at least enough folks that have a broad understanding of and experience in the IETF that members with less experience can have immediate access to aspects of IETF with which they are less familiar. There was a draft suggesting this a few years back. It's extremely difficult for someone that hasn't had at least one RFC published to really understand the overall IESG process (and that's the easy one to figure out). Due to the confidentiality requirements of the process, it's much more difficult for less experienced folks to gather that information outside the Nomcom. [/MB] > > Yours, > Joel > > > On 6/26/2013 10:28 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> On 6/26/2013 6:34 AM, Joel wrote: >>> >>> you are proposing that we appoint nomcom members who are lacking >>> critical understanding of how the IETF works, >> >> >> >> Joel, >> >> The premise of that sentence is that current selection criteria produce >> nomcom members with a "critical understanding of how the IETF works". >> >> While the current criteria serve to filter out some people lacking that >> understanding, they actually have nothing to do with understanding. They >> do not even require that the nomcom member has actively participated in >> a working group, nevermind having never had direct contact with any of >> the positions being selected by nomcom. >> >> "Attending" IETF meetings does not guarantee any level of knowledge >> about IETF work, yet "attending" is the key criterion. >> >> The selection criteria and the sampling method from the candidate pool >> for nomcom members does tend to produce some members with significant >> understanding, but that's a sampling artifact, rather than being >> assured. And indeed the composition of some nomcom membership slates >> have had remarkably little "critical understanding of how the IETF works". >> >> d/ >> > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jun 26 09:55:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E03921F9EBE for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:55:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uAUP7nCmVQj7 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B5821F96EF for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5QGtRVF008753 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:55:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372265739; bh=Elo/rNqTmIEqmACUCF8XAoSSZIADQpAz3jae6krR0sM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=H3MsC7aj/m/nYRG9lOgoZy0PAV4yvo/7ghxdC3ZquyBSIXb9JTzTJuFtRf/noxBrx PHPTmOSqBCoRYG823x7F6eavAc5cK9fgSqo37SNPSA5vNfjtPXHJD3Z3/kbEfL17xz 34xqargOp49jS8KaoVl340sBs+RxLzI31P4mS+0w= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372265739; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Elo/rNqTmIEqmACUCF8XAoSSZIADQpAz3jae6krR0sM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Kt/ROv2vhljV2qjPDdT9w8O6ihbh9jqdvRpZzIRhNTbH/oV1z7/lTB/mkqtVMGyHc WyD6B9n7RG8KOCVzQzNa8VKAcAi0Kh1xjxkD1G3rdLcoDDZvwVrlIHq2uLxKmXHiaF WwoQHRoJKpI71l2+lg+lcwKyAtGqwbaEY5luWtP4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:52:56 -0700 To: Joel From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:55:50 -0000 Hi Joel, At 06:34 26-06-2013, Joel wrote: >I appreciate the clarity of your response below, and hope I have >understood to. I'll comment below. >To highlight where I see the disconnect, you are proposing that we >appoint nomcom members who are lacking critical understanding of how >the IETF works, in order to bring in better perspective on the needs >of the folks who are not presently involved. No, the argument is that NomCom eligibility criteria should not discriminate between any contributor to the IETF Standard Process. It is difficult to find criteria to assess who has critical understanding of how the IETF works. We could, for example, assume that WG Chairs, Area Directors and IAB members have the experience and understand how the IETF works. It would look like an oligarchy. Such an approach would take the IETF back to Kobe. As Dave Crocker mentioned, "attending" IETF meetings does not guarantee any level of knowledge about IETF work, yet "attending" is the key criterion. >I would like to see more involvement from more folks i more parts of >the world wit more diverse sponsors (including making it easier for >those without sponsors). But trying to change the culture by picing >folks to pick leaders who do not understand the existing needs and >culture seems a recipe for failure. I'll step back here; who am I to decide who should or should not have the privilege to have a say or has an understanding of the existing needs and culture? I am more comfortable treating everyone as equals. A person only has to pay for three meetings and it is assumed that he or she understands IETF culture. >Put simply, I think we need to come up with good ways to improve the >various forms of involvement. The efforts by the IAOC to improve >the remote participation setup is a step > towards that. I hope that the diversity committee will come up > with useful steps. I cannot comment about the diversity committee internals. I can share my opinion about the topic. Improving the remote participation setup does not improve involvement. The message that the IETF is sending out is that "you can submit drafts and participate remotely but we cannot let you decide as you do not understand the IETF. We say we are open and transparent but our culture is based on backroom deals". Regards, S. Moonesamy From joel@stevecrocker.com Wed Jun 26 10:11:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F08B21F946C for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:11:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xn38lntdUyW3 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADBFA21F9607 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dummy.name; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:11:15 +0000 Message-ID: <51CB209D.6030203@stevecrocker.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:10:53 -0400 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:11:39 -0000 From where I sit, as a practical matter, one needs to understand the face-to-face interactions in order to lead effectively in the IETF. That may be a bad ting. But changing the leadership before we change that ground reality will produce a major problem for the continued effective functioning of the organization. Now, you may disagree with my assertion of what he job requires. But if you accept it, then it is really hard to see how someone who has not seen the face-to-face interaction can effectively select leaders who can handle that part of the job. I am not saying that is the only qualification. But it is an important. Note that although Dave expressed concern about the efficacy of the filter we currently use, I don't think he was advocating the removal of the filter. You seem to be asserting that the requirement I describe in the first paragraph as a form of discrimination. In a purely linguistic sense, it is. But that does not change the reality. Which is why I keep coming back to asking to change the reality first. Yours, Joel On 6/26/2013 12:52 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Joel, > At 06:34 26-06-2013, Joel wrote: >> I appreciate the clarity of your response below, and hope I have >> understood to. > > I'll comment below. > >> To highlight where I see the disconnect, you are proposing that we >> appoint nomcom members who are lacking critical understanding of how >> the IETF works, in order to bring in better perspective on the needs >> of the folks who are not presently involved. > > No, the argument is that NomCom eligibility criteria should not > discriminate between any contributor to the IETF Standard Process. > > It is difficult to find criteria to assess who has critical > understanding of how the IETF works. We could, for example, assume that > WG Chairs, Area Directors and IAB members have the experience and > understand how the IETF works. It would look like an oligarchy. Such > an approach would take the IETF back to Kobe. > > As Dave Crocker mentioned, "attending" IETF meetings does not guarantee > any level of knowledge about IETF work, yet "attending" is the key > criterion. > >> I would like to see more involvement from more folks i more parts of >> the world wit more diverse sponsors (including making it easier for >> those without sponsors). But trying to change the culture by picing >> folks to pick leaders who do not understand the existing needs and >> culture seems a recipe for failure. > > I'll step back here; who am I to decide who should or should not have > the privilege to have a say or has an understanding of the existing > needs and culture? I am more comfortable treating everyone as equals. > A person only has to pay for three meetings and it is assumed that he or > she understands IETF culture. > >> Put simply, I think we need to come up with good ways to improve the >> various forms of involvement. The efforts by the IAOC to improve the >> remote participation setup is a step >> towards that. I hope that the diversity committee will come up with >> useful steps. > > I cannot comment about the diversity committee internals. I can share > my opinion about the topic. > > Improving the remote participation setup does not improve involvement. > The message that the IETF is sending out is that "you can submit drafts > and participate remotely but we cannot let you decide as you do not > understand the IETF. We say we are open and transparent but our culture > is based on backroom deals". > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy From dhc@dcrocker.net Wed Jun 26 10:36:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B625B21F96EF for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:36:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uL3s9dnKGhCL for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39DD21F93D4 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.58.167.33] (72-254-23-2.client.stsn.net [72.254.23.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5QHa4h8021811 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:36:07 -0700 Message-ID: <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:35:59 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy , Joel References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:36:25 -0000 On 6/26/2013 9:52 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > No, the argument is that NomCom eligibility criteria should not > discriminate between any contributor to the IETF Standard Process. > > It is difficult to find criteria to assess who has critical > understanding of how the IETF works. We could, for example, assume that > WG Chairs, Area Directors and IAB members have the experience and > understand how the IETF works. It would look like an oligarchy. Such > an approach would take the IETF back to Kobe. On 6/26/2013 10:10 AM, Joel wrote:> > Note that although Dave expressed concern about the efficacy of the > filter we currently use, I don't think he was advocating the removal > of the filter. Since both of you cited my comments and since they were intentionally extremely narrow, I'll broaden them just a bit: 1. There is no reasonable method that can ensure high levels of relevant expertise on Nomcom; the best we can attempt is some sort of highly flawed approximation(s). 2. I think the current, single, simplistic criterion of showing up at 3 recent meetings is massively flawed and guarantees occasionally having nomcoms lacking any meaningful expertise. And yes, I said guarantees. 3. Having /some/ people chosen by that simplistic criteria has the benefit of genetic variation. All sorts of unexpected people can show up and participate, offering wildly different perspectives. That's it's strength and that's it's weakness. I think there is merit in schemes that display both strengths and weaknesses, but only if both are attended to. 4. To assure that there is at least some specific expertise amongst voting nomcom members, at least some members of nomcom need to be selected with a method that requires that expertise. In the case of nomcom, the most important expertise is direct knowledge of how things are actually managed, both well and poorly. In my view, the nomcoms that I've been around that had a solid amount of that experience had far better evaluation and deliberation processes than those that had less of that experience. 5. We currently do nothing that attends to the problem of #2. 6. The proposal that I floated some years ago was to allocate /a portion/ of the nomcom membership to a pool of nomcom volunteers who had a history of principal contribution. One can debate the details of course, but plausible experience could be RFC author, WG Chair, member of IAB, IESG or IAOC. That's just an exemplar list; I'm not trying to propose it as /the/ list. 7. I agree that a history of active participation in f2f meetings provides experiences that are not otherwise possible and that these can greatly improve one's ability to assess candidates for IETF positions. 8. Showing up at f2f nomcom sessions strikes me as essential; nomcom workings are difficult enough. 9. One could easily imagine that previous experience at having been a principal, with continued active participation, but a lack of recent attendance, could mean that a nomcom volunteer is actually a far better nomcom participant than many of those who qualify by the current simplistic criterion. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Jun 26 10:50:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD4221F9F4C for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:50:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c3CEWvi7uzl6 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8B721F9F94 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5QHoL1b032175; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:50:22 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5QHoIX2032161 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:50:19 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , "'S Moonesamy'" , "'Joel'" References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:50:16 +0100 Message-ID: <01d101ce7295$9f726150$de5723f0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIHNCYcv3FANkfMSjCkJ0gednZK3wLYw0NIAd5/NAICVMC/TgGr4wQrAkMsG88BDcF1/AHKqrdEAieUyEoB1bf6qwFwsAtUAWkuMdkCfOCfdZgdhXNQ Content-Language: en-gb Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:50:52 -0000 Curiously... > 6. The proposal that I floated some years ago was to allocate /a > portion/ of the nomcom membership to a pool of nomcom volunteers who had > a history of principal contribution. One can debate the details of > course, but plausible experience could be RFC author, WG Chair, member > of IAB, IESG or IAOC. That's just an exemplar list; I'm not trying to > propose it as /the/ list. ...actually also reduces the panic about allowing wider NomCom participation. For example (and deliberately using specific and arguable examples for the sake of clarity), we could reserve 4 places for people from the list Dave gave as an example, pick 4 from the current method (possibly excluding those on the current list), and allow 2 from a wider, less qualified or remote-attender pool. I find it interesting that the competing tensions of "make sure there is a set of more experienced people on NomCom" and "widen NomCom to allow broader participation" might be solved by the same measure. Adrian From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jun 26 12:08:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2820E11E81D0 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mg9fBrzNXrn3 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4F511E8133 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5QJ8F6g029793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372273706; bh=G0Jr+XorU99oToWqk9SFCT1YXP0pvi2HQcZXLPtxAjc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=2DC4C+bzXzQ6HkGF4V32nO66gu1SYRS2yavpG9AB5ggnjBPXwpdbkeqwrf766Cdjw tFea5D37TvqAPZEVw5YlsCfDPx5KWm6YODSwtaPRuADL08AIR69engPXXpmjXx2oSy 8dLvQOHLJXc05NS5loXP4oAnNrjcmfcZoVrzmeMA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372273706; i=@elandsys.com; bh=G0Jr+XorU99oToWqk9SFCT1YXP0pvi2HQcZXLPtxAjc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=vW8XM8xoHOuJW7o6NRud7HLqzHi+sMwemDa25Y2P7gD/oEUjD2OFjssWTYRnzeybR GEP+3Nc9pf4cdB2+YnE6cUfsZVDVsvzVbFg1edocGVOOOXgefEnYRaH5DtlpGgNUg2 /I0sfXNfM5O8/bxHtdUVRl58gr3PsHIhSvvE6Fiw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626101345.0b83e7c0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:35:02 -0700 To: Joel From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <51CB209D.6030203@stevecrocker.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB209D.6030203@stevecrocker.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:08:30 -0000 Hi Joel, At 10:10 26-06-2013, Joel wrote: >You seem to be asserting that the requirement I describe in the >first paragraph as a form of discrimination. In a purely linguistic >sense, it is. But that does not change the reality. Which is why I >keep coming back to asking to change the reality first. The reality is that some working groups are not working and it has been like that since several meetings. The reality is that one or more directorates have not been working since several years and nothing was done about that. The reality is that NomCom had to select an Area Director and the consent of the IAB was required. There was another call for candidates. A member of the IAB was selected as Area Director. Please note that I am not inferring that the person did anything inappropriate. Let's assume that you were one of the candidates who was not chosen. You might feel slighted by that. This is where you decide to go incommunicado instead of doing the working group chair work. The reality is when I ask you for help to find a mentor you go out of your way to do so. When somebody who has been to many meetings tells me that he/she had difficulty finding mentors I think that the is a problem somewhere. let me share a story I read: 'I was having tea with A company when we heard a lot of shouting and went to investigate. We found our men and the Germans standing on their respective parapets. Suddenly a salvo arrived, but did no damage. Naturally both sides got down and our men started swearing at the Germans. All at once a brave German got on to his parapet and shouted out "We are very sorry about that; we hope no one was hurt. It is not our fault, it is that damned Prussian artillery".' The above is described as "live and let live". It is about non-aggressive cooperative behavior that happened a long time ago. Regards, S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jun 26 12:08:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A6D11E81E3 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DsLAqFycgeJt for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D489D11E811A for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5QJ8F6m029793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372273718; bh=A+SzkPQMWqdUTwP5KNGDR2NRsUrfAMesqUiam8fAjCs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=RlDwGb1ejQiP6XokXNzN0X4azbyzm4gjDI7/9kJoMt2SFPQtM3PaNNuWqub3VmIys s0o6wfmraV7gWD6x9LzoK61wmOCIQd843oc2UkQk9FoxK7blV0TAcJzqw2b7GIo4KT QyPiWCUazeyMJAyIxJ4edtL9wQHOXGL0J0HXAI70= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372273718; i=@elandsys.com; bh=A+SzkPQMWqdUTwP5KNGDR2NRsUrfAMesqUiam8fAjCs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=4tbzivfQwX9t/LwnJF7/9nUZv5aUPiHGoTxLlqV4NAK5LeacRDKurKlVE5GsPpJZH M3v2mkenfKGt1kelEmoE/oKJjI93Gj2eBBt2qaiaYRXfxtvdTfXI3cQOKxX1kjssF3 GRmyxyh3VOpAXSjyE5LEtsjZ7YiGIQRdxNJIIzlo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626115547.0d736b78@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:07:32 -0700 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <01d101ce7295$9f726150$de5723f0$@olddog.co.uk> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <01d101ce7295$9f726150$de5723f0$@olddog.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:08:40 -0000 Hi Adrian, At 10:50 26-06-2013, Adrian Farrel wrote: >Curiously... > > > 6. The proposal that I floated some years ago was to allocate /a > > portion/ of the nomcom membership to a pool of nomcom volunteers who had > > a history of principal contribution. One can debate the details of > > course, but plausible experience could be RFC author, WG Chair, member > > of IAB, IESG or IAOC. That's just an exemplar list; I'm not trying to > > propose it as /the/ list. > >...actually also reduces the panic about allowing wider NomCom participation. Thanks for injecting this into the discussion. >For example (and deliberately using specific and arguable examples >for the sake >of clarity), we could reserve 4 places for people from the list Dave >gave as an >example, pick 4 from the current method (possibly excluding those on >the current >list), and allow 2 from a wider, less qualified or remote-attender pool. The community might require scientific evidence about why these numbers were chosen. :-) >I find it interesting that the competing tensions of "make sure there is a set >of more experienced people on NomCom" and "widen NomCom to allow broader >participation" might be solved by the same measure. My quick reaction would be that the goals oppose each other. Thinking of it more, I would say that the set of more experienced people would increase over the long term while bringing in more participation. Regards, S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jun 26 12:08:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7683A11E811A for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ncsGwx2SR-2g for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FA811E812E for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5QJ8F6k029793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:08:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372273714; bh=b2Z6gMdTHpC3NC0a99pWxupCpFLs5HaTpbTad5pCp1w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Cq51VZgKonT5rtAmRAMNOfePSn0Vvt/0xKSr8UR/yfjkCuAVpfVkuFVO1/4RNPNgb ClKBSJh1vVCV//D5Kt0yom5nxE9qFsNY4fw5+3EmmWgNna/yovGtIhJoOzgMWdivx/ xFDpbN7ABWy0PGN1mrbcFDi3RG2HvWXbPkRLH6hM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372273714; i=@elandsys.com; bh=b2Z6gMdTHpC3NC0a99pWxupCpFLs5HaTpbTad5pCp1w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=pcn6fWS+0F6vTogx9/X/Qwc4QU7k9x0e9hhVCjow8/LUEfQdevNM3HHTXx+4WdYrV +X0aM0+ubzSXFfnpeiOE7eJMKPJJFTbTJ8XjTcY/Zrlp06COLnvpxS33JVe8b26FBa 0xVmhK5t93wOOg37x+NfRsREV/GOeJKw9MiL2N8s= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626114318.0b83e3e8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:55:26 -0700 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:08:41 -0000 Hi Dave, At 10:35 26-06-2013, Dave Crocker wrote: >Since both of you cited my comments and since they were >intentionally extremely narrow, I'll broaden them just a bit: I should have picked the entire message or provided context. Sorry about that. >1. There is no reasonable method that can ensure high levels of >relevant expertise on Nomcom; the best we can attempt is some sort >of highly flawed approximation(s). Yes. >2. I think the current, single, simplistic criterion of showing up >at 3 recent meetings is massively flawed and guarantees occasionally >having nomcoms lacking any meaningful expertise. And yes, I said guarantees. Yes. >3. Having /some/ people chosen by that simplistic criteria has the >benefit of genetic variation. All sorts of unexpected people can >show up and participate, offering wildly different >perspectives. That's it's strength and that's it's weakness. I >think there is merit in schemes that display both strengths and >weaknesses, but only if both are attended to. I'll highlight a point "it can be a strength and it can be a weakness". I am not disagreeing btw. >4. To assure that there is at least some specific expertise amongst >voting nomcom members, at least some members of nomcom need to be >selected with a method that requires that expertise. In the case of >nomcom, the most important expertise is direct knowledge of how >things are actually managed, both well and poorly. In my view, the >nomcoms that I've been around that had a solid amount of that >experience had far better evaluation and deliberation processes than >those that had less of that experience. I'll defer to you as you have been part of NomCom. >5. We currently do nothing that attends to the problem of #2. Yes. >6. The proposal that I floated some years ago was to allocate /a >portion/ of the nomcom membership to a pool of nomcom volunteers who >had a history of principal contribution. One can debate the details >of course, but plausible experience could be RFC author, WG Chair, >member of IAB, IESG or IAOC. That's just an exemplar list; I'm not >trying to propose it as /the/ list. I am not sure whether I read that proposal. >9. One could easily imagine that previous experience at having been >a principal, with continued active participation, but a lack of >recent attendance, could mean that a nomcom volunteer is actually a >far better nomcom participant than many of those who qualify by the >current simplistic criterion. This one is interesting. I would say that the above rhymes with the word "participatory". My sense is that you said something which I have been unable to explain. Regards, S. Moonesamy From dhc@dcrocker.net Wed Jun 26 12:14:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B917611E812E for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:14:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WBzPa+iG4ZV8 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC1C111E812B for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.58.167.33] (72-254-23-2.client.stsn.net [72.254.23.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5QJEANd023923 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:14:14 -0700 Message-ID: <51CB3D7E.3080908@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:14:06 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626114318.0b83e3e8@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626114318.0b83e3e8@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:14:30 -0000 On 6/26/2013 11:55 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Dave, > At 10:35 26-06-2013, Dave Crocker wrote: >> Since both of you cited my comments and since they were intentionally >> extremely narrow, I'll broaden them just a bit: > > I should have picked the entire message or provided context. Sorry > about that. But I wasn't complaining. In fact my original comment offered very little context, because I was trying to be quite narrow in the comment. I merely took the two references as an excuse for me to elaborate further in this morning's note. >> 6. The proposal that I floated some years ago was to allocate /a >> portion/ of the nomcom membership to a pool of nomcom volunteers who >> had a history of principal contribution. One can debate the details >> of course, but plausible experience could be RFC author, WG Chair, >> member of IAB, IESG or IAOC. That's just an exemplar list; I'm not >> trying to propose it as /the/ list. > > I am not sure whether I read that proposal. It was a long time ago. My summary here contained its essential elements. >> 9. One could easily imagine that previous experience at having been a >> principal, with continued active participation, but a lack of recent >> attendance, could mean that a nomcom volunteer is actually a far >> better nomcom participant than many of those who qualify by the >> current simplistic criterion. > > This one is interesting. I would say that the above rhymes with the > word "participatory". My sense is that you said something which I have > been unable to explain. I'd apologize for having said something useful, but then you'd probably think I was complaining... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jun 26 12:28:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2578011E81D0 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:28:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fWXrsdWT43rZ for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:28:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9BF611E8127 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5QJRo6M013911 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:28:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372274882; bh=qKqeY9Zc8h/YPbWvdvPQ6cEEp8bXYHlZlZqXFPzZHg4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=5ANOKqAISuz1U2LjaZE3fSCyBLjf5dYP2nyghOsALFqp8dtqTnv2K/ULYRSJgDolQ r+rf0qhjJ7w88dCQ6nPYFoyAtdYeUO26QhCQVR2WYTOOuO3XcbpKxkg/s9xb1xcjpH x2Dgv6yRY1Wc+xnqPk7oqFD3U9jQNPrwFWugozVA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372274882; i=@elandsys.com; bh=qKqeY9Zc8h/YPbWvdvPQ6cEEp8bXYHlZlZqXFPzZHg4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=URidAcc3P96j0kP+E5MtCHvXjBJmiQlRPahXzhPchIi96e8rK6I2YKBrpnoLJy1SL PRMAqREl++G+MAnk9tv5F/FtfVSwbpmhZQffwQztcADNNIiYcfCHGkoPpN61MfC+E0 Lt9BmByhqdmwtljucsee0+Wv63L+R02qgjFYG1fo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626121832.0c4eb478@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:27:36 -0700 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <51CB3D7E.3080908@dcrocker.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626114318.0b83e3e8@elandnews.com> <51CB3D7E.3080908@dcrocker.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:28:15 -0000 Hi Dave, At 12:14 26-06-2013, Dave Crocker wrote: >I'd apologize for having said something useful, but then you'd >probably think I was complaining... Actually, no, I think that you said something very useful and I did not read it as a complaint. I cannot explain it in words. I am not sure whether the following conveys what I am trying to say: "I think that you stumbled upon something here". Regards, S. Moonesamy From dhc@dcrocker.net Wed Jun 26 12:39:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0A511E81F8 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VYhNCkA8MotX for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B847611E81EB for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.58.167.33] (72-254-23-2.client.stsn.net [72.254.23.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5QJdP2T024421 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:39:28 -0700 Message-ID: <51CB4368.8090408@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:39:20 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626114318.0b83e3e8@elandnews.com> <51CB3D7E.3080908@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626121832.0c4eb478@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626121832.0c4eb478@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:39:45 -0000 On 6/26/2013 12:27 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > I am not sure > whether the following conveys what I am trying to say: "I think that you > stumbled upon something here". Given the amount of stumbling I do, it's inevitable that I would eventually stumble onto /something/... d/ ps. I'm very glad this mailing list doesn't post a count of individuals' submissions, the way that's done for the IETF list... -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From john-ietf@jck.com Wed Jun 26 17:23:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0D811E8166 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:23:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30UonzmTkLKg for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8213911E8155 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:23:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UrzzK-000AIp-GG for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:23:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:22:57 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Message-ID: <57129ADD9A66F9F5346D5A85@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626121832.0c4eb478@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626114318.0b83e3e8@elandnews.com> <51CB3D7E.3080908@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626121832.0c4eb478@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:23:14 -0000 Folks, I think much of the discussion of this proposal misses the point, or at least the point as I see it. It is easy to say "won't work" or to complain about details. I'm not even sure the discussion belongs on the Nomcom list. I think we should move up a level and consider two things. First, the IETF has been repeating for years, in part as one of our reasons for claiming superiority to other SDOs who want to operate in the Internet space, that one can fully participate in the work of the IETF without coming to meetings. I hope we still mean that. If we don't, it may be time to revise what we say about ourselves. Second, in recent months, we've had extensive discussions about diversity in IETF participation. Some people believe that we have a big problem, others believe that we have no problem at all, and many people lie somewhere in between, but there seems to be general agreement that, in principle, at least a reasonable level of diversity is A Good Thing. After many discussions with current and would-be participants in many parts of the world outside North America, Western Europe, and a small cluster of Japanese and Chinese companies and organizations, I believe that, if we want diversity (and diversity is not just a code phrase for "women from North America and Western Europe") then we had better get used to people who frequently participate remotely. If those claims and assumptions are true, then the real issue isn't the details of Subramanian's I-D (that I-D, IMO, is not much more flawed than many first-version I-Ds) but how much we can open up the IETF process to meaningful participation by people who mostly participate remotely or whether we have no choice other than to disenfranchise them in important ways. In that light, "organizational component XYZ frequently meets face to face, therefore no one can be involved there until they attend most meetings face to face" is far less interesting than an examination of whether that particular amount of face time is really essential to the tasks of that component. In some cases -- for example, I believe the IESG is one of them-- the answer will be "yes". In others, the answer may be "well, some of that is necessary, but we ought to be able to reduce the number and/or the fraction of the group that needs to be present". Similarly, our tying eligibility to sign a recall petition to Nomcom eligibility was a matter of convenience at the time, but unless there are good reasons why a mostly-remote participate cannot be as injured or aggrieved as one who attends meetings more regularly, maybe requiring that all 20 of those who are required to endorse a recall petition is unnecessary and, indeed, unfair. I note in that regard that we do not impose an attendance requirement on the filing of appeals: if some of the hyperbole of the last few days about the importance of meeting attendance were taken to its logical conclusion, we would impose precisely such a restriction (pragmatically, that would have saved us several nuisance appeals over the years, but I hope we all agree that fairness is more important). I don't know if the recall procedure needs adjustment or if the right adjustment is dialing back the minimum qualifications for endorsing a recall petition or adjusting the number of people who must satisfy the current requirements and allowing some number of virtual signatures under some other requirement, but I think the question deserves consideration. Finally, I think we should recognize, as some people have noted, that "3 meetings our of 5" is a lousy surrogate for "understands the IETF culture and how the IETF works". Many of us have observed that some people "get it" without attending a single meeting, some after one meeting, and that, for some, three (or even five) consecutive meetings is not nearly sufficient. Maybe that surrogate measurement has been good enough in the past, but consider what would happen if, say, Phill Gross took an active interest in a WG or two, participated remotely, and maybe attended a meeting or two. We might plausibly decide that we didn't want him on the Nomcom but I doubt that anyone could claim with a straight face that the fact that he hadn't attended three of the last five meetings meant that he didn't understand how the IETF worked. The same thing could be said about other, more recent, "dropouts" from regular attendance -- Mike O'Dell, Frank Kastenholz, Joyce Reynolds, Jeff Schiller, April Marine, John Crowcroft, Craig Partridge, and a few others come immediately to mind. There are a lot of very smart people in this community. Let's try to think about how to adjust the rules and processes to make full involvement by people who don't attend many IETF meetings but who understand the community and really do participate possible. If we aren't willing to do that, probably we should stop wasting time discussing diversity and inclusion of additional communities. Or perhaps we should wait for an appeal of either BCP 10 or some Nomcom result on the grounds that, given our statements about non-meeting participation, the selection rules are manifestly unfair to significant portions of the community. Personally, I'd rather than we think creatively about the situation and get on top of things first. best, john From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 18:41:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1F511E8177 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:41:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mm8-VIotgB6D for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ABC311E8103 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rp16so205319pbb.0 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=k5uJ6WYPFZsJCHp+QqvMYhIwP1twwOSuFtWdd1z6woU=; b=xLr9NIouJWJG6OqkhQpziNr1jovp2Xn1osB9Q5VHc3HVY0GqcTjCAbmWNKfVz18tM2 zOkDiNeqjVgKps11qre8JMG6ztrXwyiZZ+2Xodv+XXh5g5VOc54EVF1U1XqmKauVvB1a iSucMj7/L4JPazKYY/LBOv1d842MDhgUxWIQBTM/rhIvdwWcY0zUoPttYi9HfQnRmtFK 83DbH4JtUHMKyiCU8epVF0M3NPPSoCiP+Myeo2mP4/1/KZgOEEfdxsgtBzTPdvYZJ1ds HJDBDH9h0lkmGcOjPfI5XhUgBAAi3AXuXQkcgZ+DP+LHGz+PptiljVI90U2ZirBDZYwf aQWA== X-Received: by 10.66.7.164 with SMTP id k4mr3428595paa.142.1372297305818; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.24.31.170] (wireless-nat-1.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.30.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xl3sm601071pbb.17.2013.06.26.18.41.43 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51CB985C.9030305@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:41:48 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org References: <20130625221832.29674.66726.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130625221832.29674.66726.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00.txt X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:41:46 -0000 So, I understand what this is trying to do: > Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of > last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least 1 of > the 5 last IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer. It's not unreasonable; on some interpretations of "attended ... remotely" it would requalify me for NomCom, for example. But it raises two flags for me: 1. I don't think that physical attendance at one meeting is convincing as an indication that someone really understands how things work around here. As John hints, *any* objective criteria are a surrogate for whether a person groks the culture. But if we must have criteria, they need to be convincing. I would prefer something more like ...must have attended at least 3 meetings in person, and have attended at least 3 of the last 5 meetings in person or remotely... (i.e. this looks at their lifetime history of personal attendance, and their recent record of any kind of attendance). 2. I didn't find an objective definition of "attend remotely". Brian Regards Brian From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jun 26 18:47:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1F521F9AA9 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:47:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mYrseYtjUPAq for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:47:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE3421F9AA7 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:47:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5R1lUbB021816 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:47:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372297663; bh=pJgsbo9IlPA7HY2ZUG1Bg9+ZDPDOGs5JG1vS7IEiDws=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=oETjCFGlb65gS4Q6CHsyw2eKELqi5mIutongdEHuWkbol/vrPzRW+x52qSLi03dDY LjGH48k/WoEN52hHX8s+vmtSAomIMdGd0Lyw8QOWi5ZFdohP38MZGqr5eCKGNwtVbY DnxwMHPZiLvC+CeEF/iEdAO49Pur0BwSrgKe42OE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372297663; i=@elandsys.com; bh=pJgsbo9IlPA7HY2ZUG1Bg9+ZDPDOGs5JG1vS7IEiDws=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=nvFadrLhaMcXgXTvQLw7moZ7b/TtXST/JA6dIf6Ttb463uCX2jiSzXy5K4sX9CzBA tSJANRCXEpETQzkb+A/6Cof02eRpC4KyDu8UUCjDVOzdX2GuaF/7Rk//bE/2aOCUDm b+tPpA4EVSqlXC5/a2CMg2WmwVX4dUexyhPR5NP4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626172527.0bbac258@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:46:42 -0700 To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <57129ADD9A66F9F5346D5A85@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626114318.0b83e3e8@elandnews.com> <51CB3D7E.3080908@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626121832.0c4eb478@elandnews.com> <57129ADD9A66F9F5346D5A85@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:47:46 -0000 At 17:22 26-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote: >Folks, I think much of the discussion of this proposal misses >the point, or at least the point as I see it. It is easy to say >"won't work" or to complain about details. I'm not even sure >the discussion belongs on the Nomcom list. I think we should >move up a level and consider two things. First, the IETF has I think that the discussion belongs on the IETF discussion list. >been repeating for years, in part as one of our reasons for >claiming superiority to other SDOs who want to operate in the >Internet space, that one can fully participate in the work of >the IETF without coming to meetings. I hope we still mean >that. If we don't, it may be time to revise what we say about Yes. >ourselves. Second, in recent months, we've had extensive >discussions about diversity in IETF participation. Some people >believe that we have a big problem, others believe that we have >no problem at all, and many people lie somewhere in between, but >there seems to be general agreement that, in principle, at least >a reasonable level of diversity is A Good Thing. After many >discussions with current and would-be participants in many parts >of the world outside North America, Western Europe, and a small >cluster of Japanese and Chinese companies and organizations, I >believe that, if we want diversity (and diversity is not just a >code phrase for "women from North America and Western Europe") >then we had better get used to people who frequently participate >remotely. Yes. >If those claims and assumptions are true, then the real issue >isn't the details of Subramanian's I-D (that I-D, IMO, is not >much >more flawed than many first-version I-Ds) but how much we can >open up the IETF process to meaningful participation by people >who mostly participate remotely or whether we have no choice >other than to disenfranchise them in important ways. We can rationalize why we have no choice other than to disenfranchise some participants or we can do something meaningful. When there isn't meaningful participation people get frustrated, people get angry, people walk away. None of those, in my opinion, make the IETF process better; what happens is the contrary. It is very difficult to reach agreement when people believe that they are being treated unfairly. >In that light, "organizational component XYZ frequently meets >face to face, therefore no one can be involved there until they >attend most meetings face to face" is far less interesting >than an examination of whether that particular amount of face >time is really essential to the tasks of that component. In >some cases -- for example, I believe the IESG is one of them-- >the answer will be "yes". In others, the answer may be "well, >some of that is necessary, but we ought to be able to reduce the >number and/or the fraction of the group that needs to be >present". The discussion has been about "this is how we do things" instead of taking an open-minded approach where we question whether it is really necessary to do things that way. Please note that I am not inferring that the people on this list are not open-minded. What I mean is to take an external view and try to put in less effort to achieve the same or better results. >Similarly, our tying eligibility to sign a recall petition to >Nomcom eligibility was a matter of convenience at the time, but >unless there are good reasons why a mostly-remote participate >cannot be as injured or aggrieved as one who attends meetings >more regularly, maybe requiring that all 20 of those who are >required to endorse a recall petition is unnecessary and, >indeed, unfair. I note in that regard that we do not impose an >attendance requirement on the filing of appeals: if some of the >hyperbole of the last few days about the importance of meeting >attendance were taken to its logical conclusion, we would impose >precisely such a restriction (pragmatically, that would have >saved us several nuisance appeals over the years, but I hope we >all agree that fairness is more important). I don't know if the >recall procedure needs adjustment or if the right adjustment is >dialing back the minimum qualifications for endorsing a recall >petition or adjusting the number of people who must satisfy the >current requirements and allowing some number of virtual >signatures under some other requirement, but I think the >question deserves consideration. The IAB Chair and IETF Chair once stated that: "We believe there is little doubt that, by any measure, IETF satisfies the requirements for openness, due process, an appeals process and consensus" Due process is a fundamental principle of fairness. The IETF can set up barriers to leave less room for appeals and recall petitions or it can look at it as a principle of fairness where an aggrieved party has a recourse if the party would like a decision to be reconsidered. >Finally, I think we should recognize, as some people have noted, >that "3 meetings our of 5" is a lousy surrogate for "understands >the IETF culture and how the IETF works". Many of us have >observed that some people "get it" without attending a single >meeting, some after one meeting, and that, for some, three (or >even five) consecutive meetings is not nearly sufficient. Maybe >that surrogate measurement has been good enough in the past, but >consider what would happen if, say, Phill Gross took an active >interest in a WG or two, participated remotely, and maybe >attended a meeting or two. We might plausibly decide that we >didn't want him on the Nomcom but I doubt that anyone could >claim with a straight face that the fact that he hadn't attended >three of the last five meetings meant that he didn't understand >how the IETF worked. The same thing could be said about other, >more recent, "dropouts" from regular attendance -- Mike O'Dell, >Frank Kastenholz, Joyce Reynolds, Jeff Schiller, April Marine, >John Crowcroft, Craig Partridge, and a few others come >immediately to mind. I note that the current process also disenfranchises people who have been attending IETF meetings since a long time. >There are a lot of very smart people in this community. Let's I strongly agree. >try to think about how to adjust the rules and processes to make >full involvement by people who don't attend many IETF meetings >but who understand the community and really do participate >possible. If we aren't willing to do that, probably we should >stop wasting time discussing diversity and inclusion of >additional communities. Or perhaps we should wait for an >appeal of either BCP 10 or some Nomcom result on the grounds >that, given our statements about non-meeting participation, the >selection rules are manifestly unfair to significant portions of >the community. Personally, I'd rather than we think creatively >about the situation and get on top of things first. It is not constructive to discuss about diversity if IAB and IESG members are not willing to ensure that participants are given the means to contribute to the maximum extent possible. Regards, S. Moonesamy From joel@stevecrocker.com Wed Jun 26 19:07:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB79011E817F for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:07:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gsey5DYne0G4 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32B511E8103 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dummy.name; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:07:34 +0000 Message-ID: <51CB9E4E.1060004@stevecrocker.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:07:10 -0400 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626114318.0b83e3e8@elandnews.com> <51CB3D7E.3080908@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <51CB3D7E.3080908@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility - Recalls X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:07:40 -0000 As a minor point, I would probably be significantly more supportive of a step that relaxed the rules for recall signers. Being involved is much more important than knowing the culte for the question of judging whether someone has done something they shouldn't ave. Yours, Joel PS: Addressing the efficacy of remote participation is a fine thing. It is not something I have a clue how to do, and not a topic for the nomcom list. On 6/26/2013 3:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 6/26/2013 11:55 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: >> Hi Dave, >> At 10:35 26-06-2013, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> Since both of you cited my comments and since they were intentionally >>> extremely narrow, I'll broaden them just a bit: >> >> I should have picked the entire message or provided context. Sorry >> about that. > > But I wasn't complaining. In fact my original comment offered very > little context, because I was trying to be quite narrow in the comment. > > I merely took the two references as an excuse for me to elaborate > further in this morning's note. > > >>> 6. The proposal that I floated some years ago was to allocate /a >>> portion/ of the nomcom membership to a pool of nomcom volunteers who >>> had a history of principal contribution. One can debate the details >>> of course, but plausible experience could be RFC author, WG Chair, >>> member of IAB, IESG or IAOC. That's just an exemplar list; I'm not >>> trying to propose it as /the/ list. >> >> I am not sure whether I read that proposal. > > It was a long time ago. My summary here contained its essential elements. > > >>> 9. One could easily imagine that previous experience at having been a >>> principal, with continued active participation, but a lack of recent >>> attendance, could mean that a nomcom volunteer is actually a far >>> better nomcom participant than many of those who qualify by the >>> current simplistic criterion. >> >> This one is interesting. I would say that the above rhymes with the >> word "participatory". My sense is that you said something which I have >> been unable to explain. > > I'd apologize for having said something useful, but then you'd probably > think I was complaining... > > d/ > > From john-ietf@jck.com Thu Jun 27 00:41:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C32F21F8FF8 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:41:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kcGSSHGJ6rYs for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13BD21F8FE5 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Us6pW-000BIN-MH; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:41:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:41:17 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: S Moonesamy Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626172527.0bbac258@resistor.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626114318.0b83e3e8@elandnews.com> <51CB3D7E.3080908@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626121832.0c4eb478@elandnews.com> <57129ADD9A66F9F5346D5A85@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626172527.0bbac258@resistor.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:41:38 -0000 --On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 18:46 -0700 S Moonesamy wrote: >... > We can rationalize why we have no choice other than to > disenfranchise some participants or we can do something > meaningful. When there isn't meaningful participation people > get frustrated, people get angry, people walk away. None of > those, in my opinion, make the IETF process better; what > happens is the contrary. It is very difficult to reach > agreement when people believe that they are being treated > unfairly. One small addition which I would have mentioned except that its most recent incarnation came up after I had written and sent my note. People here have essentially claimed that we don't know how to define "participant" except in terms of meeting registration attendance. Yet, for IPR purposes, we are comfortable defining participation in terms of Contributions and Contributions certainly do not require meeting attendance (see recent discussion on the ietf-ipr list). That inconsistency, especially when it works to drag more "participants" in where our IPR policies are concerned but to exclude where leadership selection and related issues are concerned is the sort of things that amuses lawyers. We should not be amused, nor should we seek to amuse them. While some Contributions are obviously more valuable and relevant than others, perhaps one of the tools we haven't explored as part of a model of adequate participation is our Contribution definition. best, john From john-ietf@jck.com Thu Jun 27 01:00:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C1821F9C6B for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:00:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cGNIBBMCWBEC for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06B821F9C66 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Us78H-000BK1-GO; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:00:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:00:40 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Joel Message-ID: <83960015AE8792A132108C1D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <51CB9E4E.1060004@stevecrocker.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626114318.0b83e3e8@elandnews.com> <51CB3D7E.3080908@dcrocker.net> <51CB9E4E.1060004@stevecrocker.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility - Recalls X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:00:51 -0000 --On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 22:07 -0400 Joel wrote: > As a minor point, I would probably be significantly more > supportive of a step that relaxed the rules for recall > signers. Being involved is much more important than knowing > the culte for the question of judging whether someone has done > something they shouldn't ave. For whatever it is worth, I agree. At the same time, I think that, if we want broader and more diverse participation, including active participation from those who don't regularly attend meetings it would be highly desirable for Nomcoms to consider sensitivity to those issues as one of many factors in selecting members of leadership groups, especially the IESG and IAOC. As has been regularly pointed out in "diversity" discussions, having someone who is not a member of a particular group speak for and represent that group is rarely optimal. Since I've encouraged others to think creatively, let me mention a quick thought: If we conclude that effective Nomcom membership requires physical attendance at a majority of recent meetings and physical attendance at all meetings during that Nomcom's term (I'm not convinced, but that is another matter), would the effectiveness of the Nomcom be improved by adding a special member who was selected using the usual mechanism but drawn from a pool consisting of volunteers from the portion of the community who had made multiple observable contributions but who didn't meet the meeting attendance criteria? Those special members might not be allowed to vote (consistent with "effective Nomcom membership") but, unlike liaisons, would be able to participate in all discussions and evaluations of possible candidates. Just a thought. > PS: Addressing the efficacy of remote participation is a fine > thing. It is not something I have a clue how to do, and not a > topic for the nomcom list. Perhaps someone needs to decide to move all or part of this discussion to the IETF list. Until and unless that is done, I don't think this list can dodge the apparent inconsistency I mentioned in my note of a few minutes ago. best, john From sm@elandsys.com Thu Jun 27 02:47:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D8121F9C9A for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:47:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pIzOTr+rSYYI for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:47:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A196321F9C6D for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:47:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.150.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5R9lDGQ007028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:47:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372326446; bh=IZw2/HIdQlUy2E/lp5+2CSMs7aCuozEL90j48DpfRUU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=O8e2zQ9tCqbD+r0U7RpybM/UiIPJhbArK4QyBktG5wxWlMIg2yRi56ut4jZc2XA+6 tKoXwLuTqHKLvFZO4R+Ll9Ki9IsWyjnm/jrIhqc7PRqG8J30uqKaYppuL9BgW+zfh3 n/2Y4m3cV/n8wFLUiPYFjyqC+rtYmWdOYUqAloiE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372326446; i=@elandsys.com; bh=IZw2/HIdQlUy2E/lp5+2CSMs7aCuozEL90j48DpfRUU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZFrUBcy98PFWn95ErR9G6bAiHeqP7hdwmOBHOX6cl+Q1widajvpBuUCe2Vq6gWuSG 3TDx7GW+IW3lzCn6dmJ9kfaN7xxI7i7ed3BaQM/6YrbVrVAxNMs5+lZc4ZVSLJVRS+ CxNWN2tSdgoWEgqgnVp9Ftakom9MS8onzlYz3YfU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130627020427.0e9a0b60@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:37:06 -0700 To: Joel , John C Klensin From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <51CB9E4E.1060004@stevecrocker.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626114318.0b83e3e8@elandnews.com> <51CB3D7E.3080908@dcrocker.net> <51CB9E4E.1060004@stevecrocker.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility - Recalls X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:47:30 -0000 At 19:07 26-06-2013, Joel wrote: >PS: Addressing the efficacy of remote participation is a fine >thing. It is not something I have a clue how to do, and not a topic >for the nomcom list. Spencer mentioned the following last month: "participants have to learn how to collaborate with folks" "it's still not easy for me to have conversations with total strangers. That's not a cultural challenge, and it's not a language challenge, but it is a challenge" I don't have the clue to make remote participation better. If "we" collaborate we might be able to find solutions. At 01:00 27-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote: >At the same time, I think that, if we want broader and more >diverse participation, including active participation from those >who don't regularly attend meetings it would be highly desirable >for Nomcoms to consider sensitivity to those issues as one of >many factors in selecting members of leadership groups, >especially the IESG and IAOC. As has been regularly pointed out >in "diversity" discussions, having someone who is not a member >of a particular group speak for and represent that group is >rarely optimal. One of the problems with "diversity" discussions is that we get into representativity. The question came up in one of my non-IETF roles. My stance was that I do not represent a group or claim to speak on their behalf; I am accountable to them and everybody else. >Since I've encouraged others to think creatively, let me mention >a quick thought: If we conclude that effective Nomcom >membership requires physical attendance at a majority of recent >meetings and physical attendance at all meetings during that >Nomcom's term (I'm not convinced, but that is another matter), >would the effectiveness of the Nomcom be improved by adding a >special member who was selected using the usual mechanism but >drawn from a pool consisting of volunteers from the portion of >the community who had made multiple observable contributions but >who didn't meet the meeting attendance criteria? Those special >members might not be allowed to vote (consistent with "effective >Nomcom membership") but, unlike liaisons, would be able to >participate in all discussions and evaluations of possible >candidates. My concern is that once we have a different pool or treat different parts of the community differently it can be argued that there should be more pools. Groups that feel slighted will ask for special members. >Perhaps someone needs to decide to move all or part of this >discussion to the IETF list. Until and unless that is done, I >don't think this list can dodge the apparent inconsistency I >mentioned in my note of a few minutes ago. I'll start a thread on that list. Regards, S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Thu Jun 27 02:47:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38FD21F9CC0 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:47:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Czd5rORQzn64 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C23721F9CBD for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.150.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5R9lDGS007028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:47:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372326451; bh=djsPiQZQ279cUg7rvpOkSWYBlHE4XNdRuWJuKTgY2W4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=JYpkqUslqqvQyGXiFd4gcWN3PJSktT2H7Zsh8/TagFioOdr9CTYxrWrC9objHIsSo spQpiTu+ehWUB2WPtOIYKd44A8LXYKHwjyGMjiDsYUFFPxvau4D6uylC/u/dG63ZO7 FZyMP3lVanLK1Mtsj6CfyjyZEV5oFDcwlSOQN6VE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372326451; i=@elandsys.com; bh=djsPiQZQ279cUg7rvpOkSWYBlHE4XNdRuWJuKTgY2W4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=I3Uenr1y5URf1gAtdq4vEs1hObMb7o0czRSVDDlCB63sun5ezpBo+gh8eFf7VkCbN 3LMjJHOhrWbT/jvv8uLRSpsZAVKDNbyaAUeawr8D6Xgc3M4XlA9jL/Lil6a4iSJI/l K8NbBzUvFY8eyjgoDTFZHdEgrY3AkKSxBHYK4A34= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130627023730.0e9a0f38@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:45:39 -0700 To: Brian E Carpenter From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <51CB985C.9030305@gmail.com> References: <20130625221832.29674.66726.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <51CB985C.9030305@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00.txt X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:47:38 -0000 Hi Brian, At 18:41 26-06-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >So, I understand what this is trying to do: > > > Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of > > last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least 1 of > > the 5 last IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer. > >It's not unreasonable; on some interpretations of "attended ... remotely" >it would requalify me for NomCom, for example. But it raises two flags for >me: > >1. I don't think that physical attendance at one meeting is convincing >as an indication that someone really understands how things work >around here. As John hints, *any* objective criteria are a surrogate >for whether a person groks the culture. But if we must have criteria, >they need to be convincing. I would prefer something more like Yes. >...must have attended at least 3 meetings in person, and have >attended at least 3 of the last 5 meetings in person or remotely... > >(i.e. this looks at their lifetime history of personal attendance, >and their recent record of any kind of attendance). > >2. I didn't find an objective definition of "attend remotely". This is an issue and it will have to be addressed. I prefer not to suggest a specific method for now. To say it differently, we can agree about what we would like to do and then get into the details of how it can be done. Please note that I am not ignoring the second flag. Regards, S. Moonesamy From john@jck.com Thu Jun 27 05:30:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B425721F9C07 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 05:30:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AkCAzNuzxPp6 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423F721F9C03 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 05:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UsBLI-000BfH-NK; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:30:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:30:23 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: S Moonesamy , adrian@olddog.co.uk Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130626115547.0d736b78@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <01d101ce7295$9f726150$de5723f0$@olddog.co.uk> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626115547.0d736b78@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:30:38 -0000 --On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:07 -0700 S Moonesamy wrote: >> I find it interesting that the competing tensions of "make >> sure there is a set of more experienced people on NomCom" and >> "widen NomCom to allow broader participation" might be solved >> by the same measure. > > My quick reaction would be that the goals oppose each other. > Thinking of it more, I would say that the set of more > experienced people would increase over the long term while > bringing in more participation. In principle, yes. In practice, I think it is unlikely unless we also figured out how to reduce somewhat the size and length of the time commitment (f2f or otherwise) required of Nomcom members. Note that those "more experienced people" include three groups: * those whose time is already heavily committed to leadership roles such as the ones Dave cited. * those who have some desire or expectation of being tapped for leadership roles for which Nomcom membership would make them ineligible. * those who have withdrawn from active IETF participation (including physical presence) due to lack of time, commitments elsewhere, or general disgust. There are other groups too, but I don't know how large they are. I am pretty confident that few, if any, of the people from the above groups are likely to volunteer for the Nomcom unless we figure out how to lower the time commitment (or at least the f2f commitment) required. As with the more traditional leadership positions, reversing the trends of recent years and reducing the time and other commitments would be likely to broaden the candidate pool. By contrast, and by analogy to the "don't expect people from one group to be able to fully understand and represent the perspective of another" part of the diversity discussion, a very large Nomcom time commitment is likely to reduce the people on the Nomcom who understand the value of considering people for the IESG, IAB, and IAOC who are be committed to limiting the time commitment of those roles. john From sm@elandsys.com Fri Jun 28 04:51:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B922D21F8D10 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 04:51:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t3tCLjl5CO69 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 04:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9799F21F8653 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 04:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.132.118]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5SBouE7004442 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 04:51:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372420276; bh=6RrU1FmcuybjUo+f4tIilfFtbuRYeYn9XiCkGeDVcR8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=MtUz76S/yN8GmC4phzfQiBk+EVVqg9+eedha4K14kVbKZlPQJCMXitXz39JbzjctX Q+oG/16/yZyrckWtx89dR5EytoDqnbLOi7xWJFAKGJ9yTYdvqpVYulgghGn40EQV/y 9SPw7mV+6WXsUhfkVXJ90K8qV7oVGW9dx3HOKmZA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372420276; i=@elandsys.com; bh=6RrU1FmcuybjUo+f4tIilfFtbuRYeYn9XiCkGeDVcR8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=2E15HqO9MBbuQL+FYCETdYE6bs00QkW9b2tERiDnp/eCyq781kH/ExDL9OpyPVNyf eXBmrPZVZqhPeN+hV96hw5SDsGY5fDwG4rKjbcdERKmBQDVythvs84zqxKLo9G0RvW IOJRKXflDjXTIz/4MuKFuFVuZ/Zbzt5OXkermzlM= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130628040056.0cf0a5e0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 04:50:28 -0700 To: John C Klensin , adrian@olddog.co.uk From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net> <01d101ce7295$9f726150$de5723f0$@olddog.co.uk> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626115547.0d736b78@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:51:39 -0000 At 05:30 27-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote: > * those who have some desire or expectation of being > tapped for leadership roles for which Nomcom membership > would make them ineligible. There is the cultural factor here. Some people with the desire or expectation of being tapped for a role will not step forward to say so or provide information to indicate their desire or expectation. > * those who have withdrawn from active IETF > participation (including physical presence) due to lack > of time, commitments elsewhere, or general disgust. I don't know how significant the general disgust is. I would describe it as a silent group which could protest. This is where things can be unpredictable. >There are other groups too, but I don't know how large they are. >I am pretty confident that few, if any, of the people from the >above groups are likely to volunteer for the Nomcom unless we >figure out how to lower the time commitment (or at least the f2f >commitment) required. As with the more traditional leadership Yes. >positions, reversing the trends of recent years and reducing the >time and other commitments would be likely to broaden the >candidate pool. By contrast, and by analogy to the "don't >expect people from one group to be able to fully understand and >represent the perspective of another" part of the diversity >discussion, a very large Nomcom time commitment is likely to >reduce the people on the Nomcom who understand the value of >considering people for the IESG, IAB, and IAOC who are be >committed to limiting the time commitment of those roles. The message from the floor a few months ago was "body X is not representative of us". There was a message about affiliation last year. The observation was that: 'the top four companies on this list have contributed more than half of the NomCom volunteers. The top three have contributed twice as many (44) as all of the entities that contributed only one (22).' and the opinion was that: 'the NomCom would benefit from having many "independent" members. While that could happen (yay, randomness), the odds here don't look great.' There were appearances of biased voting membership previously. If the time commitment and funding are the limiting factors the IETF can end up with another situation similar to the Transport AD one. Regards, S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Sat Jun 29 10:44:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4953E11E8186 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:44:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pOZa+znif-A3 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1461011E8191 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.158]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5THhxIW029933 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:44:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1372527851; bh=OruZyUBTozrfMbbzQs/rMo/QpvNiXVWkxScgqltV+jA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=pZifpx7zMuFtnEueq46XsQf0xZgHtfWmuZl4OS6kQjeG/shCwjiS91JgtKL60AtQ9 s7MDiIgkjWTeYKBrExEkULgA7zOq7brLefqqZpgfdBCc3X5q7A91k+NkHubUFP7x/e rYY8ulUCKktQ9ThCZC9cHA6emziYco4wt15sQzhc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1372527851; i=@elandsys.com; bh=OruZyUBTozrfMbbzQs/rMo/QpvNiXVWkxScgqltV+jA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=nURJKEkgSAvHOvHdIRcfNZ07xVQBhQtyiQ11Z4KhMii6m+zG/QJp2EVRhHdzOgWij PE5jnhdmGxfhhCJfZknl6lonu/RriwLvvPdGfpyYLEczXGSuSsyjNOJoZ4UK9FiwTF Dbx2JqV0sVVdwwWGu9dTKORrOUlRJkhwqe1drOpE= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130629022022.0b9566e0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:43:26 -0700 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00) X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:44:17 -0000 Hi Abdussalam, At 22:18 28-06-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >I think the draft still needs more details, for example, the Abstract >says to give remote contributors eligible to serve but how many >remote, it is not-reasonable/not-practical to have most remote, and it >is not fare/diverse to have all not remote. Furthermore, you did not I will work on the text in the Introduction section and change the Abstract accordingly. >mention diversity in the draft related to members selected. The text in the draft is about IETF participants who were at the meeting site and IETF participants who were not at the meeting site. The draft mentioned that some IETF participants cannot be in the room at the meeting site as they cannot afford the cost of travelling to that location. >AB> I prefer if you refer me, or the discussion list chair can refer >me to somewhere we can discuss this new draft. Please note that I was >told not to post more discuss messages on this list, so the chair or >you are required to respond on this issue related to discussing the >draft, because this may be my last post regarding this I-D. I suggest using the ietf-nomcom@ietf.org mailing list for discussions of possible revisions of the NomCom process. >AB> the update may need an informational draft (or better >introduction) like what [1] is doing, so if we know the information on >process challenges we will know the best practice. I like the [1] >draft I think it needs to be renewed including remote members >possibilities. I am not the author of that draft. The draft I submitted is unrelated to that draft. >AB> you need to define *remote contributor* in the draft. When the I received similar feedback from other people. >Section 2> The section is not reasonable because you changed with no >strong reasons. Why you want to change totally, I recommend to add >idea not change. As to give opportunity to additional memebrs that are >remote. These additional memebrs will have a special condition. This >way you don't change the conditions for the current procedure of >selecting f2f memebrs, and you may limit the number of remote >contributors maybe 10 % of the total memebrs. The why is mentioned in the Introduction Section of the draft. The draft updates RFC 3777. >AB> suggest in Section 2> I suggest not to update the text of the RFC >but to add new rule for selecting few remote participants. I have been looking into that. >Where are the five meetings (is it a f2f meeting?)and what kind of >contributing you are asking? The five meetings are defined in RFC 3777. >I really want to focus questions related to the new draft not other >issues. Therefore, I think the draft needs to involve what was >discussed on the list (feedback). Updating this RFC procedure may need I take all feedback about a draft into account. Regards, S. Moonesamy From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Sun Jun 30 12:10:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CAD21F9C3E for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:10:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dx5GtZjnQChs for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x229.google.com (mail-pd0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B3B21F8FBE for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y10so2073773pdj.0 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:10:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=EmMaocAqj7Hg9V1fzJG4e1/9b29M/9Fpzk9v+lOpPS4=; b=lFBv4lKoBToHrRjRhHIqN8/gZWp9dfSWqiT9feM4nGyXWGvPeqCW2IrOtb8LquJ5cL SieR3Pfuda34rC5Jcr3I63gRu5I7xs6UJr6jJKSsHeyJwC3dATXAq8fXMr4qLQ753CGw iWAKbobGqvlmepd6de30taOxXJhGsy+ddyX+ZraitANrhJZECXykSMXaRBa6+2KEZdYE YsWV6rzC40xiStPJwEI3OtOHN71Osvpkeg4EUUXPEN8B0USGDrJAiMYB3FobKVakAORH uar2DWylixMRdCeWeOhI6OnUXCNm76uUaopibXCP/vzgZgm5pqtOWP47spudyIrv4du7 O/VQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.147.167 with SMTP id tl7mr20761250pab.40.1372619452210; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.250.133 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:10:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130629022022.0b9566e0@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130629022022.0b9566e0@elandnews.com> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:10:52 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: S Moonesamy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00) X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 19:10:53 -0000 Hi Moonesamy, I support this work and my comments below; On 6/29/13, S Moonesamy wrote: >>mention diversity in the draft related to members selected. > > The text in the draft is about IETF participants who were at the > meeting site and IETF participants who were not at the meeting > site. The draft mentioned that some IETF participants cannot be in > the room at the meeting site as they cannot afford the cost of > travelling to that location. IETF People are in the IETF-Rooms either physically or virtually/remote, so all participants that SHOULD get this I-D's Eligibility they SHOULD attend rooms physicaly/remotely for the five meetings. The IETF has to get a system ready to register remote-participants attending ROOMS, but we may need a condition on how many rooms that thoes participants SHOULD attend and/or for how long. Please note that people may not attend meetings because their special needs, you may add this important reason that the IETF needs to look at giving chance to disabilities. > >>AB> I prefer if you refer me, or the discussion list chair can refer >>me to somewhere we can discuss this new draft. Please note that I was >>told not to post more discuss messages on this list, so the chair or >>you are required to respond on this issue related to discussing the >>draft, because this may be my last post regarding this I-D. > > I suggest using the ietf-nomcom@ietf.org mailing list for discussions > of possible revisions of the NomCom process. Thanks, > >>AB> the update may need an informational draft (or better >>introduction) like what [1] is doing, so if we know the information on >>process challenges we will know the best practice. I like the [1] >>draft I think it needs to be renewed including remote members >>possibilities. > > I am not the author of that draft. The draft I submitted is > unrelated to that draft. It is ok, I recommend using the information or the challenges mentioned, but If it was not renewed then I will do it, >>Section 2> The section is not reasonable because you changed with no >>strong reasons. Why you want to change totally, I recommend to add >>idea not change. As to give opportunity to additional memebrs that are >>remote. These additional memebrs will have a special condition. This >>way you don't change the conditions for the current procedure of >>selecting f2f memebrs, and you may limit the number of remote >>contributors maybe 10 % of the total memebrs. > > The why is mentioned in the Introduction Section of the draft. The > draft updates RFC 3777. I ment that you should not update the way to select, but only update that way of selecting new remote memebrs to the f2f attending memebrs. > >>AB> suggest in Section 2> I suggest not to update the text of the RFC >>but to add new rule for selecting few remote participants. > > I have been looking into that. Ok, so I understand that you will do something for this special type of memebr selected. So the nomcom memebrs will not be all the same type, most selected the old way and some memebrs (remote) as selected in a special way. I recommend you request to join one author of RFC3777 to co-author with you this work to because we may get more history issues that thoes authors went through, AB