Comment on this draft number 2:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My comments and suggestions to the draft depends on understanding some concepts which I state in some points:-
Firstly, the best practice needs to state human rights specially in this pandemic
and needs to state fairness and to provide
opportunity to participants withoutaffecting the feeling that IETF is a volunteering community and work to make
all efforts count in good faith.
Secondly, IETF has meeting's core values. The RFC8718 BCP226 states importance of openness and fairness and protection for participants,
when it describes the meeting venues it insures that venues keep participants safe and encourage them to
work in IETF. I recommend that this draft refers to BCP226 in terms of: 1-why we meet? 2-facilitate who want to be involved
3-inclusiveness. The BCP226 mentions safety, health risk, and travel difficulties, that show that a meeting venue showed provide.
Therefore, it is clear at 10-March there was no where to meet in the world and there may be another cancelled venue of 108, so
IETF needs to facilitate its goals and participant efforts.
Thirdly, the draft should be a best practice document it is just an RFC for such period of time, BCP is for long-periods/now-and-future.
Fourthly, we need to remember/remind All that any meeting of IETF has goals and values which is known, so does the meeting of 107 achieve
the IETF meeting goals. IMHO yes, because from BCP226 we can understand the main values and goals of meetings to facilitate work,
specially when we are in this pandemic from February 2020 and all people in the physical world have difficulties in living normal physical life.
Fifthly, the IETF is part of creating the Internet (virtual world), which is with no doubt the best place for meetings in pandemics, and which is for long time
the best choice of many organisations to conduct meetings officially and consider it as a real physical meeting with recognising each identity
of users in this virtual world of the Internet which is reliable and secured in many protocols. How can IETF not recognise a virtual meeting and accept it
as a physical meeting specially in physical-pandemic that covered the world from February 2020 until now while writing this last-call-draft?
We in IETF should be marketing for Internet-virtual-meetings and that others use Internet more frequently in official meetings. There is a future threat that
another virtual-system for the world can be used best for official meetings.
Sixth, every participant's time or effort counts, and usually it is known that time is money for the human, but time with effort has values (not only one value).
The values are gained by both parties of such business/community. In IETF of volunteering efforts which is mostly virtual, so we should never think of the money
not paid by a participant by attending this 107 virtual meeting and making it the purpose of excluding 107 from the last five IETF meetings. The time in pandemics
usually has very very high value for any human and for any business. IMHO a person calling me/my-business by phone to join our work in pandemic has more value than
some one meeting f2f in normal life.
lastly, when we exclude a meeting it means excluding efforts/participants from different parts of the world with different culture and different pandemic results.
We don't forget that there may be one participant that wanted to have a chance to be eligible by attending 107 because he made two attends but now can be excluded.
We need to be inclusive not exclusive in terms of our IETF participants to give them chances to join NomCom.
comments for > draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00> Abstract>
Abstract
The 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (NomCom) needs to be formed
between IETF 107 and IETF 108, and the issue of eligibility of who
can serve on that NomCom needs clarification. This document provides
a one-time interpretation of the eligibility rules that is required
for the exceptional situation of the cancellation of the in-person
IETF 107 meeting. This document only affects the seating of the
2020-2021 NomCom, and does not set a precedent for the future.
AB> The in person IETF 107 meeting was cancelled yes, but the abstract should say that the
meeting was held virtually. Or it should state that there was a meeting 107, so the abstract
needs clarification as was there a meeting or not. As it says first that we should decide between
meeting 107 and 108, but then says cancelled 107, so now we are not between 107 and 108!!!!!!
AB> mentioning in-person in abstract is showing that this word is very important for meetings, but IMHO it is not
the main issue in defining any meeting. A meeting is a meeting if the managers call it a meeting officially in documents.
So they called it a meeting 107, and now we are between time of two official meetings 107 and 108.
AB> we should use as in reference [CANCEL107] it was mentioned as using same words IESG used: *The IETF107 Vancouver in-person Meeting*
AB> Abstract> amend to>
Abstract The 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (NomCom) needs to be formed between IETF 107 and IETF 108, and the issue of eligibility of who can serve on that NomCom needs clarification. This document provides a one-time interpretation of the eligibility rules that is required for the exceptional situation of the cancellation of the
IETF 107 Vancouver in-person meeting, and that IETF107 meeting was conducted virtually.
This document only affects the seating of the 2020-2021 NomCom, and does not set a precedent for the future.
AB comments for > draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00> Introduction>
The COVID-19 outbreak, which at the time of this writing has been declared a global pandemic [PANDEMIC], has resulted in the cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting [CANCEL107], resulting in its conversion to a limited-agenda virtual meeting, with remote participation only. The 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (NomCom) needs to be formed between IETF 107 and IETF 108, and the issue of eligibility of who can serve on that NomCom needs clarification: a one-time interpretation of the eligibility rules is required for this particular exceptional situation, given the tight timeframe for seating this year's NomCom.AB> we need to be fair of time and place, the pandemic was in different times and places world,
and the cancellation was on 10-March.. The draft should state the date of the scheduled
IETF Vancouver meeting 21-27-March and the date of the cancellation of 10-March.
AB> In the introduction you consider forming between two meeting, so you consider both as meetings.
Therefore, 107 is a meeting completed by this draft and it was recognised to form the NomCom between
it and the coming 108 meeting.
AB> draft also needs to inform where the meeting was scheduled and cancelled, so cancelling the meeting in Vancouver, can meanhaving the meeting in another way or place. It was cancelled when pandemic reached the Vancouver city, but there was placesin the world that organisations already cancelled their in-person meeting and made them virtual.AB> The reference [CANCEL107] should change the name because it is trying to say 107 is cancelled but no, themessage by IESG was saying in the reference content that we are doing virtual meeting 107 replacing Vancouver in-person meeting.AB> change reference name>From [CANCEL107] to [Vancouver] or [Van107].draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00> background>
1. Do not count IETF 107 at all, for the purpose of NomCom
eligibility, as BCP 10 clearly refers to in-person meetings only.
NomCom eligibility would, therefore, be based on attendance at
IETFs 102 through 106.AB> why we start with not counting or with excluding attendance of 107
AB> This point is not true, the BCP 10 does not refer clearly to *in-person* this word was not used.
BCP 10 says meeting, and meeting means that IETF calls a meeting a meeting. Any meeting in the world is
defined by who calls it a meeting, and what IETF documents call that meeting, it was called 107, and
it was official and not cancelled.
AB> IMHO, if you based attendance on 102-106 then that is not the last 5 meetings only if you state in this RFC
that the 107 meeting will be repeated again at one coming date.
AB> this draft by this point will not follow BCP 10 because it includes the last 6 meetings, because a participant that
attends only 102, 103, 104, will be eligible but still was absent in three of the real last 5 meetings (105,106,107),
that is not following BCP 10 at all.draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00> background>2. Do not have anyone lose eligibility because of IETF 107, but do count someone as having attended 107, for the purpose of NomCom eligibility, if that person attended the IETF 107 virtual meeting (signed the electronic blue sheet). People could thus gain eligibility from IETF 107, but could not lose eligibility from it, and eligibility would be based on attendance at IETFs 102 through 107.
AB> this point is correct, and is best practice because counting 107 and without losing eleigibility from it.
This point considers human rights, when they are called by managers for meeting and they attend for that call.
Also considering human rights for the pandemic to give chance for who could not attend 107, so to check 102.
draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00> background>
3. Count virtual attendance at IETF 107 and consider IETF 107 as one of the last five meetings, so that NomCom eligibility would be based on attendance at IETFs 103 through 107.AB> this point does not consider reality of organisations business/practices in the world now, anddoes not consider pandemic and human rights. the 107 meeting is one of the last five meetings no doubt.AB> the draft does state about pandemic but where is human rights, the meetings are not with equal efforts.The 102 meeting should be mentioned Montreal meeting in the draft. Adding one meeting 102 and excluding 107,is not fair because usually participants are absent because of the distance of meeting usually, so if majority say include 102 andtake out 107, does that follow the BCP 10.AB> The draft MUST mention the meeting city of 102 as Montreal, and other in-person included meetings' cities should be in draft. I think also105 was in Montreal, so we have two Montreal in the meetings included in point-1 which excludes 107, don't think that is fair.AB> the draft's background or introduction SHOULD state that the IETF meetings were called by the IETF and SHOULD state on which date the decision was made thatthis 107 meeting became virtually because of pandemic.AB> amend point 3 to>3. Do not count IETF 102 in-person meeting, and only consider the last five meetings, so that NomCom eligibility would be based on attendance at IETFs 103 through 107.draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00> background>In judging rough consensus the IESG has considered the arguments and levels of support in favor of and against each option: largely, issues of fairness to newer participants, acceptance of more participants in the volunteer pool, and greatest adherence to the spirit of the rules defined in BCP 10, which is the community- consensus basis we are working from.AB> add>adherence to the spirit of the rules defined in BCP226.draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00>section 3>Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of the last five in-person IETF meetings in order to volunteer. The five meetings are the five most recent in-person meetings that ended prior to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community. Because no IETF 107 in-person was held, for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee those five meetings are IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.AB> Amend to> Reading>Members of the IETF community must have been absent at most two of the last five IETF meetings in order to volunteer. The five meetings are the five meetings called by IESG that ended prior to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community. Because there was no availability of any meeting venue for 107 meeting, it was held virtually.For the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee those five meetings are IETFs 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107.draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00>section 3>This update is an emergency interpretation of the intent of BCP 10 for this current exceptional situation only, and applies only to the 2020-2021 NomCom, which is expected to be seated prior to IETF 108.AB> amend>This update is an emergency interpretation of the intent of BCP 10 and BCP226 for this current exceptional situation only, and applies only to the 2020-2021 NomCom, which is expected to be seated prior to IETF 108.AB> in section 6, References> Add>[RFC8718] BCP226 as normative reference.AB> the above reference is important, because it shows the importance of meeting availability and inclusiveness of participants and giving chanceto include all participants equally. Also the reference shows health risk and travel difficulties issues, so that this pandemic of corona results on cities can affectchoosing meetings venues in the future, and or choosing virtual meeting as well.Take care, and best wishes,AB
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:26 PM The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee'
<draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00.txt> as Best Current Practice
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 2020-04-30. 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
The 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (NomCom) needs to be formed
between IETF 107 and IETF 108, and the issue of eligibility of who
can serve on that NomCom needs clarification. This document provides
a one-time interpretation of the eligibility rules that is required
for the exceptional situation of the cancellation of the in-person
IETF 107 meeting. This document only affects the seating of the
2020-2021 NomCom, and does not set a precedent for the future.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020/ballot/
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
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
