--On Thursday, June 27, 2019 02:37 -0700 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Brian, > At 04:18 PM 26-06-2019, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> The whole NomCom process probably does need a re-examination; >> the issue of how to enfranchise remote attendees is only part >> of it, I think, and there may be even more fundamental >> issues. But I think that should be a separate process >> (probably starting by somebody building a list of perceived >> problems). It will take some time, and approving the >> essential changes due to IETF LLC is somewhat urgent. > > My Last Call comment was about Section 7.1.1 of RFC 7437. It > was not about a list of perceived problems with the NomCom > process. It is not clear what the fundamental issues > (mentioned above) are. Are those issues related to RFC 7704? Subramanian, As you know, I'd like to see the issues with different treatment for remote participants and f2f meeting attendees who make equivalent contributions to the IETF (in whatever reasonable way that is measured) resolved, resolved soon, and resolved in favor of maximizing fairness, openness, and balance. I also think that is long overdue and that every month the IETF allows to go by without addressing it reduces that IETF's credibility as representing and including a broad sample of the experts in the network engineering and protocol design communities. I have serious misgivings about replacing older documents with new ones that do not resolve all known outstanding issues. You will recall that was my core argument for moving toward draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd and away from replacing a slew of documents and that I would have preferred to eliminate 7437bis in favor of a list of changes there. However, it seems to me that the WG, with significant input from the responsible AD, decided to keep this one separate and replace the core document. That decision went hand-in-hand with decisions to interpret the WG's scope very narrowly and exclude changes to other documents that would have had the effect of patching known problems, even to apply patches for which it seemed fairly clear that there was consensus in the community. I don't need to like those decisions (and you don't either), but I think we need to recognize that insisting that everything be addressed and fixed leads to madness and hence that some judgment calls about scope, ordering, and priorities are needed. I think adding an explicit scope statement (as Barry has done) is appropriate and necessary. Given how important decisions about scope have been to the work and progress of the WG, I hope that the WG, document authors, and the IESG can review other WG documents -- even those already approved and in the publication queue-- to see if those documents would appropriately get similar disclaimers. But I don't see trying to hold this (or other) documents up until those issues are resolved helps the WG or the IETF. That said, I think that, if WG Chairs or an AD take the position that an issue that arises in the natural course of editing or review of a document is out of scope -- essentially that the community is not allowed to discuss or act on it in that context-- they take on some obligation to be sure that there is a forum for the discussion and facilitating that discussion as well as to being absolutely consistent about what is or is not out of scope. I think we are doing fairly well about the latter (with not including Barry's clarification as good example). I can only hope that we will do equally well at the former but have seen no evidence that won't happen if appropriate requests are made. best, john
