On Tue, 2020-12-22 at 11:35 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > So for the experiment I think this can be skipped, however I think long term > > if > > these rules would be the basis for new permanent rules one should understand > > how > > much these missref cluster impacts the set of eligible persons. > > Given that the relevant data (when a draft was approved and when the RFC was > published) will be available, the evaluation of the experiment could certainly > cover this point. Yes, that would be good to actually evaluate. And I guess unless we explicitly note this concern in the document it might be forgotten next year when it should be evaluated. Cheers Magnus > > Regards > Brian > > On 22-Dec-20 00:33, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 15:20 -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > > I do not believe this document in any way removes the various > > > disqualification criteria. As such, is your question just about the > > > statistics, or is there another issue that I am missing? > > > > So the second point on A) is a question about the statistics and current > > test > > implementation that arrived at this data. I think the specification is clear > > that it is WG chairs, and not chairs of other groups that are listed in the > > data > > tracker. > > > > On my second main bullet, it is mostly a question if this really was the > > intention considering that this will impact a number of people that are > > trapped > > in clusters. It will likely lead to a small set of individuals being > > qualified > > for a longer period since the time they where active in defining and getting > > their document approved. From me that could have been a criteria that > > wouldn't > > have been affected by C238 etc. However, I don't know how many others like > > me > > that it will not matter for as I will qualify anyway even if it was 5-years > > since IESG approval, this due to other documents, and will qualify on path 1 > > also. Do you know how many people that are impacted by this? > > > > So for the experiment I think this can be skipped, however I think long term > > if > > these rules would be the basis for new permanent rules one should understand > > how > > much these missref cluster impacts the set of eligible persons. > > > > Cheers > > > > Magnus Westerlund > > (3 months left as AD) > > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > Joel > > > > > > On 12/18/2020 8:44 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > So I have review the document and have some comments and questions. > > > > > > > > A) Section 4, Path 2: > > > > Path 2: Has been a Working Group Chair or Secretary within the 3 years > > > > prior > > > > to the day the call for nomcom volunteers is sent to the community. > > > > > > > > Am I correct that the datatracker database will be the data source used > > > > to > > > > asses this criteria? Should that be explicitly mentioned? > > > > > > > > Secondly, I think I will show up in this data set when it is run this > > > > summer > > > > because I am currently listed as chair for TSVAREA, which is listed as > > > > group > > > > but isn't a WG. Has this source of faults been considered? > > > > > > > > ) Section 4: > > > > > > > > Path 3: Has been a listed author or editor (on the front page) of at > > > > least 2 > > > > IETF stream RFCs within the last 5 years prior to the day the call for > > > > nomcom volunteers is sent to the community. An Internet-Draft that has > > > > been > > > > approved by the IESG and is in the RFC Editor queue counts the same as a > > > > published RFC (with the relevant date being the date the draft was added > > > > to > > > > the RFC editor queue). So the 5 year timer extends back to the date 5 > > > > years > > > > before the date when the call for nomcom volunteers is sent to the > > > > community. > > > > > > > > As I unfortunately have managed to write a document for various reasons > > > > spent more than 5 years in Missref (C238). So if I interpret this > > > > correct, > > > > assuming C238 is published prior to the call for volunteers next year I > > > > will > > > > get approved for this, despite that the document are more than 5 years > > > > since > > > > they entered the RFC-editor queue. I don't think this needs to be > > > > addressed > > > > as it is a corner case and will affect very few. However, having a > > > > document > > > > stay in the RFC-editor queue for a long time makes this rule apply for > > > > very > > > > long time. I don't know how big the effect of this would be, but we have > > > > a > > > > large set of C238 authors that will if this rule is used for the future > > > > have > > > > their nomcom eligibility extend for another 5 years, even if they > > > > haven't > > > > been active and participating by the publication of C238. > > > > > > > > Otherwise it looks good. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Magnus Westerlund > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of The > > > > > IESG > > > > > Sent: den 2 december 2020 16:44 > > > > > To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > Cc: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand@xxxxxxxx > > > > > Subject: Last Call: <draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-08.txt> > > > > > > > > (Additional > > > > > Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility) to Experimental RFC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to > > > > > consider > > > > > > > > the > > > > > following document: - 'Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee > > > > > Eligibility' > > > > > <draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-08.txt> as Experimental RFC > > > > > > > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > > > > > > > > final > > > > > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last- > > > > > call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2020-12-30. Exceptionally, comments may > > > > > be > > > > > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > > > > > beginning > > > > > > > > of > > > > > the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > > > > > > > Abstract > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This document defines a process experiment under RFC 3933 that > > > > > temporarily updates the criteria for qualifying volunteers to > > > > > participate in the IETF Nominating Committee. It therefore also > > > > > updates the criteria for qualifying signatories to a community > > > > > recall > > > > > petition. The purpose is to make the criteria more flexible in > > > > > view > > > > > of increasing remote participation in the IETF and a reduction in > > > > > face-to-face meetings. The experiment is of fixed duration and > > > > > will > > > > > apply to one, or at most two, Nominating Committee cycles. This > > > > > document temporarily varies the rules in RFC 8713. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > IETF-Announce mailing list > > > > > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > > > > >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
