Hi AB, On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 08:00:38PM +0200, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > 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. I'm confused about the use of "MUST" here. It sounds like you are saying that RFC 8713 requires it, but I think the whole premise of the document in question is that it is updating and overriding RFC 8713 for the case of IETF 107 and the 2020/2021 nomcomm. That is, we are not bound by RFC 8713 since we can change any provisions that we need to -- we want to limit the amount of the change to just what we need to have a clear picture for this year's nomcom, but that is only out of a desire to make a minimal change and not due to an obligation to remain faithful to the specific strictures of RFC 8713. > 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??? The proposal is to publich a BCP document with IETF consensus, the same strength of rules that produced RFC 8713. Is that not enough authority? -Ben -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
