On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 10:29 PM Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[Moving over to last-call, where the discussion on this draft is taking
place...]
On 4 Apr 2020, at 8:52, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> It is clear in section 4.14 of RFC8713, it defines that last meetings
> as the last meeting and not the last f2f meetings.
I think this is the key part of your message. It is *not* clear that
"meetings" refers to other than face-to-face meetings. At the time of
the writing of this requirement, there was not such thing as a
non-face-to-face meeting, and I don't think it is clear that the
intention of those who worked on this document would have been to
include virtual meetings in the qualifications. That is not to say that
the text can't be read the way you are reading it; it's a reasonable
interpretation. But it's not *clear* that yours is the only
interpretation.
You seem to be OK with the proposal that 102 gets counted; you only seem
to be objecting to not counting 107. So, when you say you "don't accept"
the solution proposed in this document, can you explain more clearly why
the attendance at 107 absolutely must be counted? Is it simply that you
don't accept that 8713 intended only face-to-face meetings be counted
for qualification, or that it's unfair to not count 107, or is it
something else? You might still end up in the "rough" part of the "rough
consensus", but if you've got an argument that convinces the rest of us,
I'm sure it would considered.
We don't forget that who wrote the RFC8713 also ment by meeting is the meeting that the IETF managers call it a meeting, so our IETF managers have already called for a meeting and they called it meeting 107, so do you say that 107 is not a meeting, if you say that, let us hear from our managers what do they call 107. When you go to any meeting in the past or in present or in future, usually you know who calls for the meeting, its the managers call for the meeting, and the members or participants follow and come for it and make effort. In our case, the IETF did call for the meeting and did decide to make it official so participants followed. Therefore, how can we exclude this meeting 107 and it is the real part of the last 5 meetings that managers called for them. Also we don't forget the effort that many participated in attending IETF107 meeting. The RFC8713 does not say to exclude just because non f2f, so I think my opinion is more close to RFC8713 than excluding a meeting without finding any text refers to f2f or any text refering to way of excluding meetings and replacing other.
Also remember that there is a separate discussion, over on
eligibility-discuss@xxxxxxxx, about the broader effort to make remote
attendance count toward NomCom eligibility. I think your comments and
suggestions would be much more helpful over there. Barry's document is
about a one-time stop-gap measure. The other effort is about updating
8713 to make it clear that remote participation (and perhaps some other
criteria) should count toward NomCom eligibility.
I usually also commented/suggested that when a manager calls for last 5 meetings and participants are absent in two meeting then by RFC8713 they are eligible, so even if I add meeting 102, I should make sure that a participant must have only two absent of (103,104,105,106), I just will add 102 to give him chance to be eligible even if he/she did not attend 107 because of the pandemic. So if participant is absent in 107 we don't count his absence but if he/she attended it is MUST be counted because it was called for by managers.
Usually absence affects meetings and are counted at no pandemics, but attendance are always counted in all meetings. People's time count, how can a document say that we exclude a meeting just because it was not f2f, however, the question is do you have authority to exclude a meeting while the managers of IETF already called for the meeting and the managers did not cancel the meeting???
BEst Regards
AB
Cheers,
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
