Thank you all for the feedback, I understand your point.
However, a clarification is missing in this document even if it may seem obvious to you:
« This document reflects the consensus obtained after active discussions in the ELEGY group. Several ideas have been dismissed during discussions, and this document does not try to record them. »
Then I can more easily « accept » the outcome, because I trust you all and understand that reaching consensus is a complex process that requires compromise.
Still I see no reason to leave IRTF aside, there’s a single community ;-)
Cheers, Vincent
Le 26 janv. 2023 à 03:39, Eric Rescorla < ekr@xxxxxxxx> a écrit :
On 26-Jan-23 06:31, Martin Duke wrote:
> Hi Vincent, thanks for the review.
>
> In my opinion, your concerns challenge the consensus in the WG, so I can't change the text unilaterally. I'll leave it up to our AD what he wants to do with these objections.
I think that is correct. I haven't checked the archive, but I'm fairly sure that all these ideas were explored in the WG discussion. (Possibly some of them were explored earlier, during the development of RFC8989, which was a non-WG document.)
For example, eligibility via IRTF positions or RFCs was definitely discussed, though not in depth. fwiw my personal opinion is that it's the IETF NomCom, so IRTF shouldn't count.
This is my opinion as well. I would object to making IRTF a path to eligibility
-Ekr
Brian
>
> Regardless, I'll share my personal thoughts about some of your comments
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 5:08 AM Vincent Roca via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx <mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> In my opinion (my two cents):
> -- the NomCom candidate must be part of the **active community**.
> Being part of the NomCom committee is earned.
> How to define "active community" deserves consensus, but if Paths 2 and 3
> (section 4) are valid, IMHO Path 1 is not, and there's a huge gap between 2-3
> and 1! Can't we find a midway as a replacement for Path 1, e.g., being
> co-author of a WG-Item document (the whole standardisation process takes so
> long...)?
>
>
> The status quo is 3 out of 5 meetings in person. The change here is to allow remote attendance instead. Paths 2 and 3 are innovations in RFC8989, and they're included to cover some people that are deeply involved (in interims, for example) without attending plenaries for whatever reason.
>
> In my opinion, restricting it to chairs and authors eliminates a lot of people that are actively involved in the work of the IETF, and puts an even bigger premium on authorship, which has bad side-effects. Path 1 absolutely includes a bunch of lurkers that don't actively participate in the life of the IETF, but then those people are not going to volunteer anyway.
>
>
> -- the NomCom candidate **identity must be verified**.
> I've never been asked to prove my identity at IETF (registration, picking my
> badge, editing an I-D), which is mostly fine. However we're talking here of
> being part of a committee that is key to the IETF: it deserves additional
> checks. And if there could be good reasons for an IETF participant to use a
> pseudonym, this is an exception, not the rule, and it disqualifies for NomCom
> IMO.
>
>
> We got AD guidance that we could not task the Secretariat with things in this document. I will note that RFC 8713 has a challenge process after NomCom selection, which would be a good opportunity to question a volunteer that seemed suspect.
>
>
> Additional remark:
>
> -- Section 4: I understand we're talking about IETF, but I see no reason to
> ignore IRTF altogether in Path 2 (section 4). Beeing a Research Group Chair or
> Secretary is also sign of being part of the active community.
>
>
> I would not object to this, if others agreed.
>
>
> -- Section 4: I don't see a justification for 3 years (WG/RG chair or
> secretary) versus 5 years (RFC author). Being in responsibility of a Group is
> engaging and a sign of a commitment to the Community, much more than being
> co-author of an RFC which is above all an individual achievement.
>
>
> Since the RFC requirement is "2 over 5 years", this provides a little more time for people who do one RFC at a time to get two done. Certainly, there's an edge case where someone publishes two at the same time 4.5 years ago, but... meh. We could specify it further (at least one within 3 years, and two in 5) if people want.
>
>
> In any case thank you for considering this important topic.
>
>
>
>
--
Eligibility-discuss mailing list
Eligibility-discuss@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
|
