[Last-Call] AB-RE: Last Call: <draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00.txt> (Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee) to Best Current Practice

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> · Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:34:37 +0200

Hi Adrian and Adam,

Thanks for your reply and advise. My reply to your comments below,

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:18 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
AB, greetings.

I think you make excellent points for how we engineer NomCom eligibility in the future with full consideration of remote participation.

However, this draft is to address a very specific need against a very tight timeline.

ok, so our last call comments to IESG will still be documented in IETF. In future, some students may read it all, and make comments and analysis of this as past. In my culture,
people in present always should think how future people/new-generation will read past decisions and interactions.

The risk is that if we debate your points, as I’m sure you’d agree is the correct thing to do, we will not reach agreement and consensus in time to seat this particular NomCom.

I never thought of this risk, because I always think if no consensus still the IESG can make the draft official and issue their decision for this specific tight timeline. The IESG has the authority
and power to solve any IETF problem if there was no consensus specially for administrative RFCs. I usually send my last call comments to IESG request, and I did not much make discussions
in IETF list because I think they already had their decision with consensus, and we are now in IESG last call.

 I hope you will also agree that if we cannot put a NomCom in place in time, then we will jeopardise all of the processes and operational procedures of the IETF, and none of us would want that.

I am not sure I understand. Do you mean that NomCom cannot be formed by IESG decision only if there is consensus? Doesn't IESG have the authority to make a special decision if there was no consensus?

 I think the spirit of consensus-rule is effective and helpful in my old culture, they used by finding the right thing to do for community. When there is consensus, then that means we will have many to use the decision and obey the order, but on the other hand, if we don't have consensus that will mean that there may be a problem in the proposed-decision or in the community, so it is better to force a fair decision that makes amendments that is close to logical best practice. That is why we need a high board to direct communities, and in IETF, that is why we need IESG. 

I think it is the power of IESG to review this last call draft, to form NomCom, and to make draft fair and make it following all BCP spirits which should include good faith. I like to trust the IESG they do their best but still they can get in future critical analysis to their decisions or interactions.

So this draft is a compromise proposal. Many people have discussed different approaches and details, but they have agreed to compromise.

ok that they did compromise discussions, but the draft did not reflect that interaction. I read it and gives less information of the real situation of this pandemic and no availability of meeting venue. This pandemic is very very special and this NomCom will be also very special and their work will be very special if the pandemic does not stop before few months. May God bless all,

The question for you is which of your comments are you prepared to compromise on for this one NomCom. Once this is agreed, we can have the longer and more considered discussion of how to handled future NomCom eligibility.

Usually in IETF compromise can happen between participants that recognise each other or reply to each other in discussions, there can be participants that are ignored or excluded, or blocked by some groups in WGs or by groups in IETF list. I have very few participants that reply or recognise me, so how could I compromise with who does not recognise me. However, if you mean me and you to compromise between our opinions, I will need to discuss with you in a different subject/thread of not IESG-Last-Call, but we can discuss as subject: the IETF compromised proposal. 

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:16 PM Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    On 4/6/2020 9:18 AM, Adrian Farrel
      wrote:

      However,
          this draft is to address a very specific need against a very
          tight timeline. 
      The
          risk is that if we debate your points, as I’m sure you’d agree
          is the correct thing to do, we will not reach agreement and
          consensus in time to seat this particular NomCom. I hope you
          will also agree that if we cannot put a NomCom in place in
          time, then we will jeopardise all of the processes and
          operational procedures of the IETF, and none of us would want
          that.

    I completely agree with Adrian's assessment here. I have thoughts
      about many of the detailed points that AB has raised, but am not
      bringing them forth because driving them to conclusion would
      likely take more time than we currently have.
IMHO  thinking of risks and time SHOULD not affect our comment to IESG, the IESG now is asking for comments with this Last Call, why should we not give our real views or full reviews and comments.
IMHO it is a problem to feel that we can not comment fully, because we don't have time, which I think there is no need for long time, because the time frame is structured and is until 30 April and fixed and a decision will be made by IESG with consensus or without consensus.

Best Wishes,

AB

From: last-call <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: 06 April 2020 14:20
To: last-call@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00.txt> (Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee) to Best Current Practice

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 without
affecting 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 mean
having the meeting in another way or place. It was cancelled when pandemic reached the Vancouver city, but there was places
in 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, the 
message 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, and
does 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 and 
take 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 also
105 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 that
this 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 chance
to include all participants equally. Also the reference shows health risk and travel difficulties issues, so that this pandemic of corona results on cities can affect
choosing 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